Dataset Information

The case for using mapped exonic non-duplicate reads when reporting RNA-sequencing depth: examples from pediatric cancer datasets.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The reproducibility of gene expression measured by RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) is dependent on the sequencing depth. While unmapped or non-exonic reads do not contribute to gene expression quantification, duplicate reads contribute to the quantification but are not informative for reproducibility. We show that mapped, exonic, non-duplicate (MEND) reads are a useful measure of reproducibility of RNA-Seq datasets used for gene expression analysis.

Findings

In bulk RNA-Seq datasets from 2,179 tumors in 48 cohorts, the fraction of reads that contribute to the reproducibility of gene expression analysis varies greatly. Unmapped reads constitute 1-77% of all reads (median [IQR], 3% [3-6%]); duplicate reads constitute 3-100% of mapped reads (median [IQR], 27% [13-43%]); and non-exonic reads constitute 4-97% of mapped, non-duplicate reads (median [IQR], 25% [16-37%]). MEND reads constitute 0-79% of total reads (median [IQR], 50% [30-61%]).

Conclusions

Because not all reads in an RNA-Seq dataset are informative for reproducibility of gene expression measurements and the fraction of reads that are informative varies, we propose reporting a dataset's sequencing depth in MEND reads, which definitively inform the reproducibility of gene expression, rather than total, mapped, or exonic reads. We provide a Docker image containing (i) the existing required tools (RSeQC, sambamba, and samblaster) and (ii) a custom script to calculate MEND reads from RNA-Seq data files. We recommend that all RNA-Seq gene expression experiments, sensitivity studies, and depth recommendations use MEND units for sequencing depth.

SUBMITTER: Beale HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7955155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a powerful tool for genome-wide expression profiling of biological samples with the advantage of high-throughput and high resolution. There are many existing algorithms nowadays for quantifying expression levels and detecting differential gene expression, but none of them takes the misaligned reads that are mapped to non-exonic regions into account. We developed a novel algorithm, XBSeq, where a statistical model was established based on the assumption that observed signals are the convolution of true expression signals and sequencing noises. The mapped reads in non-exonic regions are considered as sequencing noises, which follows a Poisson distribution. Given measureable observed and noise signals from RNA-seq data, true expression signals, assuming governed by the negative binomial distribution, can be delineated and thus the accurate detection of differential expressed genes.ResultsWe implemented our novel XBSeq algorithm and evaluated it by using a set of simulated expression datasets under different conditions, using a combination of negative binomial and Poisson distributions with parameters derived from real RNA-seq data. We compared the performance of our method with other commonly used differential expression analysis algorithms. We also evaluated the changes in true and false positive rates with variations in biological replicates, differential fold changes, and expression levels in non-exonic regions. We also tested the algorithm on a set of real RNA-seq data where the common and different detection results from different algorithms were reported.ConclusionsIn this paper, we proposed a novel XBSeq, a differential expression analysis algorithm for RNA-seq data that takes non-exonic mapped reads into consideration. When background noise is at baseline level, the performance of XBSeq and DESeq are mostly equivalent. However, our method surpasses DESeq and other algorithms with the increase of non-exonic mapped reads. Only in very low read count condition XBSeq had a slightly higher false discovery rate, which may be improved by adjusting the background noise effect in this situation. Taken together, by considering non-exonic mapped reads, XBSeq can provide accurate expression measurement and thus detect differential expressed genes even in noisy conditions.

Project description:Sequencing data from host-associated microbes can often be contaminated by the body of the investigator or research subject. Human DNA is typically removed from microbial reads either by subtractive alignment (dropping all reads that map to the human genome) or by using a read classification tool to predict those of human origin, and then discarding them. To inform best practice guidelines, we benchmarked eight alignment-based and two classification-based methods of human read detection using simulated data from 10 clinically prevalent bacteria and three viruses, into which contaminating human reads had been added. While the majority of methods successfully detected >99?% of the human reads, they were distinguishable by variance. The most precise methods, with negligible variance, were Bowtie2 and SNAP, both of which misidentified few, if any, bacterial reads (and no viral reads) as human. While correctly detecting a similar number of human reads, methods based on taxonomic classification, such as Kraken2 and Centrifuge, could misclassify bacterial reads as human, although the extent of this was species-specific. Among the most sensitive methods of human read detection was BWA, although this also made the greatest number of false positive classifications. Across all methods, the set of human reads not identified as such, although often representing <0.1?% of the total reads, were non-randomly distributed along the human genome with many originating from the repeat-rich sex chromosomes. For viral reads and longer (>300?bp) bacterial reads, the highest performing approaches were classification-based, using Kraken2 or Centrifuge. For shorter (c. 150?bp) bacterial reads, combining multiple methods of human read detection maximized the recovery of human reads from contaminated short read datasets without being compromised by false positives. A particularly high-performance approach with shorter bacterial reads was a two-stage classification using Bowtie2 followed by SNAP. Using this approach, we re-examined 11?577 publicly archived bacterial read sets for hitherto undetected human contamination. We were able to extract a sufficient number of reads to call known human SNPs, including those with clinical significance, in 6?% of the samples. These results show that phenotypically distinct human sequence is detectable in publicly archived microbial read datasets.