Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies

dc.contributor.authorArfa Mehmood
dc.contributor.authorAsta Laiho
dc.contributor.authorMikko S. Venäläinen
dc.contributor.authorAidan J. McGlinchey
dc.contributor.authorNing Wang and Laura L. Elo
dc.contributor.organizationfi=Turun biotiedekeskus|en=Turku Bioscience Centre|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=biolääketieteen laitos|en=Institute of Biomedicine|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=kieli- ja puheteknologia|en=Language and Speech Technology|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.18586209670
dc.contributor.organization-code2606805
dc.contributor.organization-code2607100
dc.contributor.organization-code2609200
dc.contributor.organization-code2609201
dc.converis.publication-id44404514
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/44404514
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-28T00:27:21Z
dc.date.available2025-08-28T00:27:21Z
dc.description.abstractDifferential splicing (DS) is a post-transcriptional biological process with critical, wide-ranging effects on a plethora of cellular activities and disease processes. To date, a number of computational approaches have been developed to identify and quantify differentially spliced genes from RNA-seq data, but a comprehensive intercomparison and appraisal of these approaches is currently lacking. In this study, we systematically evaluated 10 DS analysis tools for consistency and reproducibility, precision, recall and false discovery rate, agreement upon reported differentially spliced genes and functional enrichment. The tools were selected to represent the three different methodological categories: exon-based (DEXSeq, edgeR, JunctionSeq, limma), isoform-based (cuffdiff2, DiffSplice) and event-based methods (dSpliceType, MAJIQ, rMATS, SUPPA). Overall, all the exon-based methods and two event-based methods (MAJIQ and rMATS) scored well on the selected measures. Of the 10 tools tested, the exon-based methods performed generally better than the isoform-based and event-based methods. However, overall, the different data analysis tools performed strikingly differently across different data sets or numbers of samples.
dc.identifier.eissn1477-4054
dc.identifier.jour-issn1467-5463
dc.identifier.olddbid205743
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/188770
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/56935
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2021042822458
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorMehmood, Arfa
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorLaiho, Asta
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorVenäläinen, Mikko
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorMcglinchey, Aidan
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorWang, Ning
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorElo, Laura
dc.okm.discipline1182 Biochemistry, cell and molecular biologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline1182 Biokemia, solu- ja molekyylibiologiafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationinternational co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA1 ScientificArticle
dc.publisherOxford University Press
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.doi10.1093/bib/bbz126
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBriefings in Bioinformatics
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/188770
dc.titleSystematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
dc.year.issued2019

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
bbz126.pdf
Size:
1.68 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Publisher´s PDF