ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2023
Evaluation of epitranscriptome-wide N6-methyladenosine differential analysis methods.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Statistical modeling of single-cell epitranscriptomics enabled trajectory and regulatory inference of RNA methylation.Cell genomics · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Mettl3 Deficiency Causes Congenital Cardiac Defects and Postnatal Lethality in Mice.International journal of biological sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- magpie: A power evaluation method for differential RNA methylation analysis in N6-methyladenosine sequencing.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Short-Term Thermal Effect of Continuous Ultrasound from 3 MHz to 1 and 0.5 W/cmDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA methylation has emerged recently as an active research domain to study post-transcriptional alteration in gene expression regulation. Various types of RNA methylation, including N6-methyladenosine (m6A), are involved in human disease development. As a newly developed sequencing biotechnology to quantify the m6A level on a transcriptome-wide scale, MeRIP-seq expands RNA epigenetics study in both basic and clinical applications, with an upward trend. One of the fundamental questions in RNA methylation data analysis is to identify the Differentially Methylated Regions (DMRs), by contrasting cases and controls. Multiple statistical approaches have been recently developed for DMR detection, but there is a lack of a comprehensive evaluation for these analytical methods. Here, we thoroughly assess all eight existing methods for DMR calling, using both synthetic and real data. Our simulation adopts a Gamma-Poisson model and logit linear framework, and accommodates various sample sizes and DMR proportions for benchmarking. For all methods, low sensitivities are observed among regions with low input levels, but they can be drastically boosted by an increase in sample size. TRESS and exomePeak2 perform the best using metrics of detection precision, FDR, type I error control and runtime, though hampered by low sensitivity. DRME and exomePeak obtain high sensitivities, at the expense of inflated FDR and type I error. Analyses on three real datasets suggest differential preference on identified DMR length and uniquely discovered regions, between these methods.
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.