ArticleMobile DNA2024
Transposable Element (TE) insertion predictions from RNAseq inputs and TE impact on RNA splicing and gene expression in Drosophila brain transcriptomes.
Article in Mobile DNA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies have suggested that Transposable Elements (TEs) residing in introns frequently splice into and alter primary gene-coding transcripts. To re-examine the exonization frequency of TEs into protein-coding gene transcripts, we re-analyzed a Drosophila neuron circadian rhythm RNAseq dataset and a deep long RNA fly midbrain RNAseq dataset using our Transposon Insertion and Depletion Analyzer (TIDAL) program. Our TIDAL results were able to predict several TE insertions from RNAseq data that were consistent with previous published studies. However, we also uncovered many discrepancies in TE-exonization calls, such as reads that mainly support intron retention of the TE and little support for chimeric mRNA spliced to the TE. We then deployed rigorous genomic DNA-PCR (gDNA-PCR) and RT-PCR procedures on TE-mRNA fusion candidates to see how many of bioinformatics predictions could be validated. By testing a w1118 strain from which the deeper long RNAseq data was derived and comparing to an OreR strain, only 9 of 23 TIDAL candidates (< 40%) could be validated as a novel TE insertion by gDNA-PCR, indicating that deeper study is needed when using RNAseq data as inputs into current TE-insertion prediction programs. Of these validated calls, our RT-PCR results only supported TE-intron retention. Lastly, in the Dscam2 and Bx genes of the w1118 strain that contained intronic TEs, gene expression was 23 times higher than the OreR genes lacking the TEs. This study's validation approach indicates that chimeric TE-mRNAs are infrequent and cautions that more optimization is required in bioinformatics programs to call TE insertions using RNAseq datasets.
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.