4.6 Article

PTESFinder: a computational method to identify post-transcriptional exon shuffling (PTES) events

期刊

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-0881-4

关键词

RNAseq; circRNA; PTES; Splicing; mRNA processing; Software

资金

  1. BBSRC [BB/J014516/1]
  2. Leverhulme Trust [RPG-2012-795]
  3. Wellcome Trust [WT089225MA]
  4. BBSRC [BB/J014516/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [1219486] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transcripts, which have been subject to Post-transcriptional exon shuffling (PTES), have an exon order inconsistent with the underlying genomic sequence. These have been identified in a wide variety of tissues and cell types from many eukaryotes, and are now known to be mostly circular, cytoplasmic, and non-coding. Although there is no uniformly ascribed function, several have been shown to be involved in gene regulation. Accurate identification of these transcripts can, however, be difficult due to artefacts from a wide variety of sources. Results: Here, we present a computational method, PTESFinder, to identify these transcripts from high throughput RNAseq data. Uniquely, it systematically excludes potential artefacts emanating from pseudogenes, segmental duplications, and template switching, and outputs both PTES and canonical exon junction counts to facilitate comparative analyses. In comparison with four existing methods, PTESFinder achieves highest specificity and comparable sensitivity at a variety of read depths. PTESFinder also identifies between 13 % and 41.6 % more structures, compared to publicly available methods recently used to identify human circular RNAs. Conclusions: With high sensitivity and specificity, user-adjustable filters that target known sources of false positives, and tailored output to facilitate comparison of transcript levels, PTESFinder will facilitate the discovery and analysis of these poorly understood transcripts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据