4.8 Article

SCISSOR: a framework for identifying structural changes in RNA transcripts

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20593-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U10CA181009, CA211939, CA210988, UG1CA233333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study proposes an unbiased and robust framework for discovering aberrant RNA transcript structures using shape changes in RNA-seq coverage data. This framework allows for the independent discovery of known and novel variants without making assumptions about the underlying genetic mechanisms of abnormalities.
High-throughput sequencing protocols such as RNA-seq have made it possible to interrogate the sequence, structure and abundance of RNA transcripts at higher resolution than previous microarray and other molecular techniques. While many computational tools have been proposed for identifying mRNA variation through differential splicing/alternative exon usage, challenges in its analysis remain. Here, we propose a framework for unbiased and robust discovery of aberrant RNA transcript structures using short read sequencing data based on shape changes in an RNA-seq coverage profile. Shape changes in selecting sample outliers in RNA-seq, SCISSOR, is a series of procedures for transforming and normalizing base-level RNA sequencing coverage data in a transcript independent manner, followed by a statistical framework for its analysis (https://github.com/hyochoi/SCISSOR). The resulting high dimensional object is amenable to unsupervised screening of structural alterations across RNA-seq cohorts with nearly no assumption on the mutational mechanisms underlying abnormalities. This enables SCISSOR to independently recapture known variants such as splice site mutations in tumor suppressor genes as well as novel variants that are previously unrecognized or difficult to identify by any existing methods including recurrent alternate transcription start sites and recurrent complex deletions in 3' UTRs.

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

4.8
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