Cargando…

Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies

Differential 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mehmood, Arfa, Laiho, Asta, Venäläinen, Mikko S, McGlinchey, Aidan J, Wang, Ning, Elo, Laura L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31802105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz126
_version_ 1783618109414834176
author Mehmood, Arfa
Laiho, Asta
Venäläinen, Mikko S
McGlinchey, Aidan J
Wang, Ning
Elo, Laura L
author_facet Mehmood, Arfa
Laiho, Asta
Venäläinen, Mikko S
McGlinchey, Aidan J
Wang, Ning
Elo, Laura L
author_sort Mehmood, Arfa
collection PubMed
description Differential 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7711265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77112652020-12-09 Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies Mehmood, Arfa Laiho, Asta Venäläinen, Mikko S McGlinchey, Aidan J Wang, Ning Elo, Laura L Brief Bioinform Review Article Differential 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. Oxford University Press 2019-12-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7711265/ /pubmed/31802105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz126 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Mehmood, Arfa
Laiho, Asta
Venäläinen, Mikko S
McGlinchey, Aidan J
Wang, Ning
Elo, Laura L
Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title_full Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title_fullStr Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title_full_unstemmed Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title_short Systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for RNA-seq studies
title_sort systematic evaluation of differential splicing tools for rna-seq studies
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7711265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31802105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz126
work_keys_str_mv AT mehmoodarfa systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies
AT laihoasta systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies
AT venalainenmikkos systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies
AT mcglincheyaidanj systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies
AT wangning systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies
AT elolaural systematicevaluationofdifferentialsplicingtoolsforrnaseqstudies