2021
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-021-04263-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computational comparison of common event-based differential splicing tools: practical considerations for laboratory researchers

Abstract: 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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(43 reference statements)
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…a portion of transcripts from each affected gene was aberrantly spliced with the remaining transcripts displaying conventional splicing ( Figure 1E and Figure S1 ). To globally investigate alternative splicing penetrance we used rMATS, a frequently used software that performs well in independent assessments ( 36 , 37 ), to assess the inclusion level of exons across the transcriptome. For each sample we calculated an “exon commitment” score, which we define as the proportion of exons that were either completely spliced-in (i.e.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a portion of transcripts from each affected gene was aberrantly spliced with the remaining transcripts displaying conventional splicing ( Figure 1E and Figure S1 ). To globally investigate alternative splicing penetrance we used rMATS, a frequently used software that performs well in independent assessments ( 36 , 37 ), to assess the inclusion level of exons across the transcriptome. For each sample we calculated an “exon commitment” score, which we define as the proportion of exons that were either completely spliced-in (i.e.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Five major AS event types, including intron retention, exon skipping, alternative 5′ splice site, alternative 3′ splice site, and mutually exclusive exons, were identified by AStalavista v4.0.1 according to the output files [ 49 ]. Differentially alternative splicing events (DAS) between different samples were respectively quantified using rMATS (version 4.1.2) [ 50 ]. Transcript isoforms were translated based on the longest ORF by TBtools v1.108.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternative splicing (AS) analysis was performed by rMATS software, which provides a statistical method of robust and flexible detection of differential AS from replicate RNAseq data [38,39]. It identifies AS events corresponding to all major types of AS patterns and calculates the p-value and FDR.…”
Section: Alternative Splicing Analysis and Exon Skipping Events Annot...mentioning
confidence: 99%