Deep learning tools are top performers in long non-coding RNA prediction

dc.contributor.authorAmmunét Tea
dc.contributor.authorWang Ning
dc.contributor.authorKhan Sofia
dc.contributor.authorElo Laura L
dc.contributor.organizationfi=InFLAMES Lippulaiva|en=InFLAMES Flagship|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=Turun biotiedekeskus|en=Turku Bioscience Centre|
dc.contributor.organizationfi=biolääketieteen laitos|en=Institute of Biomedicine|
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.18586209670
dc.contributor.organization-code1.2.246.10.2458963.20.68445910604
dc.contributor.organization-code2609201
dc.converis.publication-id175411816
dc.converis.urlhttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/Publication/175411816
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-28T00:32:28Z
dc.date.available2025-08-28T00:32:28Z
dc.description.abstractThe increasing amount of transcriptomic data has brought to light vast numbers of potential novel RNA transcripts. Accurately distinguishing novel long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) from protein-coding messenger RNAs (mRNAs) has challenged bioinformatic tool developers. Most recently, tools implementing deep learning architectures have been developed for this task, with the potential of discovering sequence features and their interactions still not surfaced in current knowledge. We compared the performance of deep learning tools with other predictive tools that are currently used in lncRNA coding potential prediction. A total of 15 tools representing the variety of available methods were investigated. In addition to known annotated transcripts, we also evaluated the use of the tools in actual studies with real-life data. The robustness and scalability of the tools' performance was tested with varying sized test sets and test sets with different proportions of lncRNAs and mRNAs. In addition, the ease-of-use for each tested tool was scored. Deep learning tools were top performers in most metrics and labelled transcripts similarly with each other in the real-life dataset. However, the proportion of lncRNAs and mRNAs in the test sets affected the performance of all tools. Computational resources were utilized differently between the top-ranking tools, thus the nature of the study may affect the decision of choosing one well-performing tool over another. Nonetheless, the results suggest favouring the novel deep learning tools over other tools currently in broad use.
dc.format.pagerange230
dc.format.pagerange241
dc.identifier.eissn2041-2657
dc.identifier.jour-issn2041-2649
dc.identifier.olddbid205901
dc.identifier.oldhandle10024/188928
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/11111/36259
dc.identifier.urlhttps://academic.oup.com/bfg/article/21/3/230/6523275
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi-fe2022081153829
dc.language.isoen
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorAmmunet, Tea
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorWang, Ning
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorKhan, Sofia
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorElo, Laura
dc.okm.affiliatedauthorDataimport, Biolääketieteen laitoksen yhteiset
dc.okm.discipline3111 Biomedicineen_GB
dc.okm.discipline318 Medical biotechnologyen_GB
dc.okm.discipline3111 Biolääketieteetfi_FI
dc.okm.discipline318 Lääketieteen bioteknologiafi_FI
dc.okm.internationalcopublicationnot an international co-publication
dc.okm.internationalityInternational publication
dc.okm.typeA2 Scientific Article
dc.publisherOXFORD UNIV PRESS
dc.publisher.countryUnited Kingdomen_GB
dc.publisher.countryBritanniafi_FI
dc.publisher.country-codeGB
dc.relation.doi10.1093/bfgp/elab045
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBriefings in Functional Genomics
dc.relation.issue3
dc.relation.volume21
dc.source.identifierhttps://www.utupub.fi/handle/10024/188928
dc.titleDeep learning tools are top performers in long non-coding RNA prediction
dc.year.issued2022

Tiedostot

Näytetään 1 - 1 / 1
Ladataan...
Name:
elab045.pdf
Size:
898.88 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format