↓ Skip to main content

The discrepancy among single nucleotide variants detected by DNA and RNA high throughput sequencing data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
The discrepancy among single nucleotide variants detected by DNA and RNA high throughput sequencing data
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4022-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Guo, Shilin Zhao, Quanhu Sheng, David C Samuels, Yu Shyr

Abstract

High throughput sequencing technology enables the both the human genome and transcriptome to be screened at the single nucleotide resolution. Tools have been developed to infer single nucleotide variants (SNVs) from both DNA and RNA sequencing data. To evaluate how much difference can be expected between DNA and RNA sequencing data, and among tissue sources, we designed a study to examine the single nucleotide difference among five sources of high throughput sequencing data generated from the same individual, including exome sequencing from blood, tumor and adjacent normal tissue, and RNAseq from tumor and adjacent normal tissue. Through careful quality control and analysis of the SNVs, we found little difference between DNA-DNA pairs (1%-2%). However, between DNA-RNA pairs, SNV differences ranged anywhere from 10% to 20%. Only a small portion of these differences can be explained by RNA editing. Instead, the majority of the DNA-RNA differences should be attributed to technical errors from sequencing and post-processing of RNAseq data. Our analysis results suggest that SNV detection using RNAseq is subject to high false positive rates.

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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 23%
Computer Science 7 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 13 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,218,737
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,222
of 10,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,348
of 323,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#24
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,692 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 323,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.