ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Computational Comparison of Differential Splicing Tools for Targeted RNA Long-Amplicon Sequencing (rLAS).
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) is a powerful technique for the quantification of transcripts and the analysis of alternative splicing. Previously, our laboratory developed the targeted RNA long-amplicon sequencing (rLAS) method, which has the advantage of allowing deep analysis of targeted specific transcripts. The computational tools for analyzing RNA-Seq data have boosted alternative splicing research by detecting and quantifying splicing events. However, the performance of these splicing tools has not yet been investigated for rLAS. Here, we evaluated the performance of four splicing tools (MAJIQ, rMATS, MISO, and SplAdder) using samples with different types of known splicing events (exon-skipping, multiple-exon-skipping, alternative 5' splicing, and alternative 3' splicing). MAJIQ was able to detect all of the types of events, but it was unable to detect one of the exon-skipping events. On the other hand, rMATS was able to detect all of the exon-skipping events. However, rMATS failed to detect other types of events besides exon-skipping events. Both MISO and SplAdder were unable to detect any of the events. These results indicate that MAJIQ presents better performance for the different types of splicing events in rLAS and that rMATS shows better performance for exon-skipping splicing events.
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.