ArticlePloS one2018
RNA variant identification discrepancy among splice-aware alignment algorithms.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- CCDC137: A key hub for RNA and epigenetic regulation in cancer research (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Emerging insights into the role of BDH1 in the pathogenesis of human cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2023Review
- Transcriptome analysis provides critical answers to the "variants of uncertain significance" conundrum.Human mutation · 2022Review
- Exploring breast and prostate cancer RNA-seq derived radiosensitivity with the Genomic Adjusted Radiation Dose (GARD) model.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Mutational profiling in acute lymphoblastic leukemia by RNA sequencing and chromosomal genomic array testing.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Neoantigen prediction in human breast cancer using RNA sequencing data.Cancer science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques have been generating various molecular maps, including transcriptomes via RNA-seq. Although the primary purpose of RNA-seq is to quantify the expression level of known genes, RNA variants are also identifiable. However, care must be taken to account for RNA's dynamic nature. In this study, we evaluated the following popular splice-aware alignment algorithms in the context of RNA variant-calling analysis: HISAT2, STAR, STAR (two-pass mode), Subread, and Subjunc. For this, we performed RNA-seq with ten pieces of invasive ductal carcinoma from breast tissue and three pieces of adjacent normal tissue from a single patient. These RNA-seq data were used to evaluate the performance of splice-aware aligners. Surprisingly, the number of common potential RNA editing sites (pRESs) identified by all alignment algorithms was less than 2% of the total. The main cause of this difference was the mapped reads on the splice junctions. In addition, the RNA quality significantly affected the outcome. Therefore, researchers must consider these experimental and bioinformatic features during RNA variant analysis. Further investigations of common pRESs discovered that BDH1, CCDC137, and TBC1D10A transcripts contained a single non-synonymous RNA variant that was unique to breast cancer tissue compared to adjacent normal tissue; thus, further clinical validation is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.