Cargando…

Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools

RNA, like DNA and proteins, can undergo modifications. To date, over 170 RNA modifications have been identified, leading to the emergence of a new research area known as epitranscriptomics. RNA editing is the most frequent RNA modification in mammalian transcriptomes, and two types have been identif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morales, David Rodríguez, Rennie, Sarah, Uchida, Shizuka
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10527054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37754200
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biotech12030056
_version_ 1785111114573414400
author Morales, David Rodríguez
Rennie, Sarah
Uchida, Shizuka
author_facet Morales, David Rodríguez
Rennie, Sarah
Uchida, Shizuka
author_sort Morales, David Rodríguez
collection PubMed
description RNA, like DNA and proteins, can undergo modifications. To date, over 170 RNA modifications have been identified, leading to the emergence of a new research area known as epitranscriptomics. RNA editing is the most frequent RNA modification in mammalian transcriptomes, and two types have been identified: (1) the most frequent, adenosine to inosine (A-to-I); and (2) the less frequent, cysteine to uracil (C-to-U) RNA editing. Unlike other epitranscriptomic marks, RNA editing can be readily detected from RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data without any chemical conversions of RNA before sequencing library preparation. Furthermore, analyzing RNA editing patterns from transcriptomic data provides an additional layer of information about the epitranscriptome. As the significance of epitranscriptomics, particularly RNA editing, gains recognition in various fields of biology and medicine, there is a growing interest in detecting RNA editing sites (RES) by analyzing RNA-seq data. To cope with this increased interest, several bioinformatic tools are available. However, each tool has its advantages and disadvantages, which makes the choice of the most appropriate tool for bench scientists and clinicians difficult. Here, we have benchmarked bioinformatic tools to detect RES from RNA-seq data. We provide a comprehensive view of each tool and its performance using previously published RNA-seq data to suggest recommendations on the most appropriate for utilization in future studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10527054
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105270542023-09-28 Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools Morales, David Rodríguez Rennie, Sarah Uchida, Shizuka BioTech (Basel) Review RNA, like DNA and proteins, can undergo modifications. To date, over 170 RNA modifications have been identified, leading to the emergence of a new research area known as epitranscriptomics. RNA editing is the most frequent RNA modification in mammalian transcriptomes, and two types have been identified: (1) the most frequent, adenosine to inosine (A-to-I); and (2) the less frequent, cysteine to uracil (C-to-U) RNA editing. Unlike other epitranscriptomic marks, RNA editing can be readily detected from RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data without any chemical conversions of RNA before sequencing library preparation. Furthermore, analyzing RNA editing patterns from transcriptomic data provides an additional layer of information about the epitranscriptome. As the significance of epitranscriptomics, particularly RNA editing, gains recognition in various fields of biology and medicine, there is a growing interest in detecting RNA editing sites (RES) by analyzing RNA-seq data. To cope with this increased interest, several bioinformatic tools are available. However, each tool has its advantages and disadvantages, which makes the choice of the most appropriate tool for bench scientists and clinicians difficult. Here, we have benchmarked bioinformatic tools to detect RES from RNA-seq data. We provide a comprehensive view of each tool and its performance using previously published RNA-seq data to suggest recommendations on the most appropriate for utilization in future studies. MDPI 2023-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC10527054/ /pubmed/37754200 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biotech12030056 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Morales, David Rodríguez
Rennie, Sarah
Uchida, Shizuka
Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title_full Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title_fullStr Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title_short Benchmarking RNA Editing Detection Tools
title_sort benchmarking rna editing detection tools
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10527054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37754200
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biotech12030056
work_keys_str_mv AT moralesdavidrodriguez benchmarkingrnaeditingdetectiontools
AT renniesarah benchmarkingrnaeditingdetectiontools
AT uchidashizuka benchmarkingrnaeditingdetectiontools