4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of RNA-Seq alignment algorithms and the RNA-Seq unified mapper (RUM)

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 27, 期 18, 页码 2518-2528

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr427

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [EY020902, EY12910, F32 EY020747]
  2. Foundation Fighting Blindness, USA
  3. Rosanne Silbermann Foundation
  4. Penn Genome Frontiers Institute
  5. Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics
  6. EuPath DB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: A critical task in high-throughput sequencing is aligning millions of short reads to a reference genome. Alignment is especially complicated for RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) because of RNA splicing. A number of RNA-Seq algorithms are available, and claim to align reads with high accuracy and efficiency while detecting splice junctions. RNA-Seq data are discrete in nature; therefore, with reasonable gene models and comparative metrics RNA-Seq data can be simulated to sufficient accuracy to enable meaningful benchmarking of alignment algorithms. The exercise to rigorously compare all viable published RNA-Seq algorithms has not been performed previously. Results: We developed an RNA-Seq simulator that models the main impediments to RNA alignment, including alternative splicing, insertions, deletions, substitutions, sequencing errors and intron signal. We used this simulator to measure the accuracy and robustness of available algorithms at the base and junction levels. Additionally, we used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Sanger sequencing to validate the ability of the algorithms to detect novel transcript features such as novel exons and alternative splicing in RNA-Seq data from mouse retina. A pipeline based on BLAT was developed to explore the performance of established tools for this problem, and to compare it to the recently developed methods. This pipeline, the RNA-Seq Unified Mapper (RUM), performs comparably to the best current aligners and provides an advantageous combination of accuracy, speed and usability.

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