Cargando…
Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers
BACKGROUND: Computational tools analyzing RNA-sequencing data have boosted alternative splicing research by identifying and assessing differentially spliced genes. However, common alternative splicing analysis tools differ substantially in their statistical analyses and general performance. This rep...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8236165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34174808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9 |
_version_ | 1783714482068914176 |
---|---|
author | Muller, Ittai B. Meijers, Stijn Kampstra, Peter van Dijk, Steven van Elswijk, Michel Lin, Marry Wojtuszkiewicz, Anna M. Jansen, Gerrit de Jonge, Robert Cloos, Jacqueline |
author_facet | Muller, Ittai B. Meijers, Stijn Kampstra, Peter van Dijk, Steven van Elswijk, Michel Lin, Marry Wojtuszkiewicz, Anna M. Jansen, Gerrit de Jonge, Robert Cloos, Jacqueline |
author_sort | Muller, Ittai B. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Computational tools analyzing RNA-sequencing data have boosted alternative splicing research by identifying and assessing differentially spliced genes. However, common alternative splicing analysis tools differ substantially in their statistical analyses and general performance. This report compares the computational performance (CPU utilization and RAM usage) of three event-level splicing tools; rMATS, MISO, and SUPPA2. Additionally, concordance between tool outputs was investigated. RESULTS: Log-linear relations were found between job times and dataset size in all splicing tools and all virtual machine (VM) configurations. MISO had the highest job times for all analyses, irrespective of VM size, while MISO analyses also exceeded maximum CPU utilization on all VM sizes. rMATS and SUPPA2 load averages were relatively low in both size and replicate comparisons, not nearing maximum CPU utilization in the VM simulating the lowest computational power (D2 VM). RAM usage in rMATS and SUPPA2 did not exceed 20% of maximum RAM in both size and replicate comparisons while MISO reached maximum RAM usage in D2 VM analyses for input size. Correlation coefficients of differential splicing analyses showed high correlation (β > 80%) between different tool outputs with the exception of comparisons of retained intron (RI) events between rMATS/MISO and rMATS/SUPPA2 (β < 60%). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to RNA-seq analyses, users should consider job time, amount of replicates and splice event type of interest to determine the optimal alternative splicing tool. In general, rMATS is superior to both MISO and SUPPA2 in computational performance. Analysis outputs show high concordance between tools, with the exception of RI events. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8236165 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82361652021-06-28 Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers Muller, Ittai B. Meijers, Stijn Kampstra, Peter van Dijk, Steven van Elswijk, Michel Lin, Marry Wojtuszkiewicz, Anna M. Jansen, Gerrit de Jonge, Robert Cloos, Jacqueline BMC Bioinformatics Research Article BACKGROUND: Computational tools analyzing RNA-sequencing data have boosted alternative splicing research by identifying and assessing differentially spliced genes. However, common alternative splicing analysis tools differ substantially in their statistical analyses and general performance. This report compares the computational performance (CPU utilization and RAM usage) of three event-level splicing tools; rMATS, MISO, and SUPPA2. Additionally, concordance between tool outputs was investigated. RESULTS: Log-linear relations were found between job times and dataset size in all splicing tools and all virtual machine (VM) configurations. MISO had the highest job times for all analyses, irrespective of VM size, while MISO analyses also exceeded maximum CPU utilization on all VM sizes. rMATS and SUPPA2 load averages were relatively low in both size and replicate comparisons, not nearing maximum CPU utilization in the VM simulating the lowest computational power (D2 VM). RAM usage in rMATS and SUPPA2 did not exceed 20% of maximum RAM in both size and replicate comparisons while MISO reached maximum RAM usage in D2 VM analyses for input size. Correlation coefficients of differential splicing analyses showed high correlation (β > 80%) between different tool outputs with the exception of comparisons of retained intron (RI) events between rMATS/MISO and rMATS/SUPPA2 (β < 60%). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to RNA-seq analyses, users should consider job time, amount of replicates and splice event type of interest to determine the optimal alternative splicing tool. In general, rMATS is superior to both MISO and SUPPA2 in computational performance. Analysis outputs show high concordance between tools, with the exception of RI events. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9. BioMed Central 2021-06-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8236165/ /pubmed/34174808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Muller, Ittai B. Meijers, Stijn Kampstra, Peter van Dijk, Steven van Elswijk, Michel Lin, Marry Wojtuszkiewicz, Anna M. Jansen, Gerrit de Jonge, Robert Cloos, Jacqueline Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title | Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title_full | Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title_fullStr | Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title_full_unstemmed | Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title_short | Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
title_sort | computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8236165/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34174808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mullerittaib computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT meijersstijn computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT kampstrapeter computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT vandijksteven computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT vanelswijkmichel computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT linmarry computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT wojtuszkiewiczannam computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT jansengerrit computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT dejongerobert computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers AT cloosjacqueline computationalcomparisonofcommoneventbaseddifferentialsplicingtoolspracticalconsiderationsforlaboratoryresearchers |