4.7 Article

A long-read RNA-seq approach to identify novel transcripts of very large genes

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 885-897

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.259903.119

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, District of Columbia Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Award (DC-IDDRC) program [1U54HD090257]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01NS029525, T32AR056993]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [ZIANS003129] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

RNA-seq is widely used for studying gene expression, but commonly used sequencing platforms produce short reads that only span up to two exon junctions per read. This makes it difficult to accurately determine the composition and phasing of exons within transcripts. Although long-read sequencing improves this issue, it is not amenable to precise quantitation, which limits its utility for differential expression studies. We used long-read isoform sequencing combined with a novel analysis approach to compare alternative splicing of large, repetitive structural genes in muscles. Analysis of muscle structural genes that produce medium (Nrap: 5 kb), large (Neb: 22 kb), and very large (Ttn: 106 kb) transcripts in cardiac muscle, and fast and slow skeletal muscles identified unannotated exons for each of these ubiquitous muscle genes. This also identified differential exon usage and phasing for these genes between the different muscle types. By mapping the in-phase transcript structures to known annotations, we also identified and quantified previously unannotated transcripts. Results were confirmed by endpoint PCR and Sanger sequencing, which revealed muscle-type-specific differential expression of these novel transcripts. The improved transcript identification and quantification shown by our approach removes previous impediments to studies aimed at quantitative differential expression of ultralong 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

4.7
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