Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29523794›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

Complementarity of assembly-first and mapping-first approaches for alternative splicing annotation and differential analysis from RNAseq data.

Clara Benoit-Pilven, Camille Marchet, Emilie Chautard, Leandro Lima, Marie-Pierre Lambert, Gustavo Sacomoto, Amandine Rey, Audric Cologne, Sophie Terrone, Louis Dulaurier and 4 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Shark: fishing relevant reads in an RNA-Seq sample.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Clara Benoit-PilvenUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Camille MarchetIRISA Inria Rennes Bretagne Atlantique CNRS UMR 6074, Université Rennes 1, GenScale team, Rennes, 263 Avenue Général Leclerc, Rennes, France.
Emilie ChautardUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Leandro LimaUniversité de Lyon, F-69000, Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, F-69622, Villeurbanne, EPI ERABLE - Inria Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France.
Marie-Pierre LambertUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Gustavo SacomotoUniversité de Lyon, F-69000, Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, F-69622, Villeurbanne, EPI ERABLE - Inria Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France.
Amandine ReyUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Audric CologneUniversité de Lyon, F-69000, Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, F-69622, Villeurbanne, EPI ERABLE - Inria Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France.
Sophie TerroneUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Louis DulaurierUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Jean-Baptiste ClaudeUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Cyril F BourgeoisUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France.
Didier AuboeufUniversité de Lyon, ENS de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard, CNRS UMR 5239, INSERM U1210, Laboratory of Biology and Modelling of the Cell, 46 Allée d'Italie Site Jacques Monod, F-69007, Lyon, France. Didier.auboeuf@inserm.fr.
Vincent LacroixUniversité de Lyon, F-69000, Lyon; Université Lyon 1; CNRS, UMR5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, F-69622, Villeurbanne, EPI ERABLE - Inria Grenoble, Rhône-Alpes, France. Vincent.lacroix@univ-lyon1.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide analyses estimate that more than 90% of multi exonic human genes produce at least two transcripts through alternative splicing (AS). Various bioinformatics methods are available to analyze AS from RNAseq data. Most methods start by mapping the reads to an annotated reference genome, but some start by a de novo assembly of the reads. In this paper, we present a systematic comparison of a mapping-first approach (FARLINE) and an assembly-first approach (KISSPLICE). We applied these methods to two independent RNAseq datasets and found that the predictions of the two pipelines overlapped (70% of exon skipping events were common), but with noticeable differences. The assembly-first approach allowed to find more novel variants, including novel unannotated exons and splice sites. It also predicted AS in recently duplicated genes. The mapping-first approach allowed to find more lowly expressed splicing variants, and splice variants overlapping repeats. This work demonstrates that annotating AS with a single approach leads to missing out a large number of candidates, many of which are differentially regulated across conditions and can be validated experimentally. We therefore advocate for the combined use of both mapping-first and assembly-first approaches for the annotation and differential analysis of AS from RNAseq datasets.

Indexed as

Alternative SplicingSoftwareHumansRNA Splice SitesSequence Analysis, RNARNA Splice Sites

Identifiers

PMID29523794
PMCPMC5844962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.