↓ Skip to main content

Identification of long non-coding transcripts with feature selection: a comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Identification of long non-coding transcripts with feature selection: a comparative study
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1594-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovanna M. M. Ventola, Teresa M. R. Noviello, Salvatore D’Aniello, Antonietta Spagnuolo, Michele Ceccarelli, Luigi Cerulo

Abstract

The unveiling of long non-coding RNAs as important gene regulators in many biological contexts has increased the demand for efficient and robust computational methods to identify novel long non-coding RNAs from transcripts assembled with high throughput RNA-seq data. Several classes of sequence-based features have been proposed to distinguish between coding and non-coding transcripts. Among them, open reading frame, conservation scores, nucleotide arrangements, and RNA secondary structure have been used with success in literature to recognize intergenic long non-coding RNAs, a particular subclass of non-coding RNAs. In this paper we perform a systematic assessment of a wide collection of features extracted from sequence data. We use most of the features proposed in the literature, and we include, as a novel set of features, the occurrence of repeats contained in transposable elements. The aim is to detect signatures (groups of features) able to distinguish long non-coding transcripts from other classes, both protein-coding and non-coding. We evaluate different feature selection algorithms, test for signature stability, and evaluate the prediction ability of a signature with a machine learning algorithm. The study reveals different signatures in human, mouse, and zebrafish, highlighting that some features are shared among species, while others tend to be species-specific. Compared to coding potential tools and similar supervised approaches, including novel signatures, such as those identified here, in a machine learning algorithm improves the prediction performance, in terms of area under precision and recall curve, by 1 to 24%, depending on the species and on the signature. Understanding which features are best suited for the prediction of long non-coding RNAs allows for the development of more effective automatic annotation pipelines especially relevant for poorly annotated genomes, such as zebrafish. We provide a web tool that recognizes novel long non-coding RNAs with the obtained signatures from fasta and gtf formats. The tool is available at the following url: http://www.bioinformatics-sannio.org/software/ .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 20%
Computer Science 7 9%
Engineering 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2017.
All research outputs
#12,838,216
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#3,641
of 7,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,132
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#54
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.