ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
Detection of alternative splicing: deep sequencing or deep learning?
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The IR-Homeostat Hypothesis: Intron Retention as an Evolutionarily Conserved Fine-Tuning Layer and a Reversible Blood Biomarker of Homeostatic Dysregulation in Mood Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Detection of alternative splicing: deep sequencing or deep learning?Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- A comparative evaluation of deep learning models for the classification of encoded splice-junction sequences.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Alternative splicing is a crucial mechanism of gene regulation that enables condition- and tissue-specific expression of gene isoforms. Its dysregulation plays a role in various diseases such as cancer, neurological disorders, and metabolic conditions. Despite its importance, accurate detection of alternative splicing events remains challenging. Comprehensive alternative splicing event detection typically requires deep sequencing with over 100 million reads; however, much of the publicly accessible RNA sequencing data is of lower sequencing depth. Recent advances, particularly deep learning models working with genomic sequences, offer new avenues for predicting alternative splicing without reliance on high sequencing depth data. Our study addresses the question: Can we utilize the vast repository of publicly available RNA sequencing data for comprehensive alternative splicing detection, despite the low sequencing depth? Our results demonstrate the potential of sequence-based deep learning tools such as AlphaGenome, SpliceAI and DeepSplice for initial hypothesis development and as additional filters in standard RNA sequencing pipelines, especially when sequencing depth is limited. Nonetheless, validation with higher sequencing depths remains essential for confirmation of splice events. Overall, our findings underscore the need for integrative methods combining genomic sequence data and RNA sequencing data for the prediction of tissue- and condition-specific alternative splicing in resource-limited settings.
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.