↓ Skip to main content

A Support Vector Machine based method to distinguish long non-coding RNAs from protein coding transcripts

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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
A Support Vector Machine based method to distinguish long non-coding RNAs from protein coding transcripts
Published in
BMC Genomics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4178-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo W. Schneider, Taina Raiol, Marcelo M. Brigido, Maria Emilia M. T. Walter, Peter F. Stadler

Abstract

In recent years, a rapidly increasing number of RNA transcripts has been generated by thousands of sequencing projects around the world, creating enormous volumes of transcript data to be analyzed. An important problem to be addressed when analyzing this data is distinguishing between long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) and protein coding transcripts (PCTs). Thus, we present a Support Vector Machine (SVM) based method to distinguish lncRNAs from PCTs, using features based on frequencies of nucleotide patterns and ORF lengths, in transcripts. The proposed method is based on SVM and uses the first ORF relative length and frequencies of nucleotide patterns selected by PCA as features. FASTA files were used as input to calculate all possible features. These features were divided in two sets: (i) 336 frequencies of nucleotide patterns; and (ii) 4 features derived from ORFs. PCA were applied to the first set to identify 6 groups of frequencies that could most contribute to the distinction. Twenty-four experiments using the 6 groups from the first set and the features from the second set where built to create the best model to distinguish lncRNAs from PCTs. This method was trained and tested with human (Homo sapiens), mouse (Mus musculus) and zebrafish (Danio rerio) data, achieving 98.21%, 98.03% and 96.09%, accuracy, respectively. Our method was compared to other tools available in the literature (CPAT, CPC, iSeeRNA, lncRNApred, lncRScan-SVM and FEELnc), and showed an improvement in accuracy by ≈3.00%. In addition, to validate our model, the mouse data was classified with the human model, and vice-versa, achieving ≈97.80% accuracy in both cases, showing that the model is not overfit. The SVM models were validated with data from rat (Rattus norvegicus), pig (Sus scrofa) and fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), and obtained more than 84.00% accuracy in all these organisms. Our results also showed that 81.2% of human pseudogenes and 91.7% of mouse pseudogenes were classified as non-coding. Moreover, our method was capable of re-annotating two uncharacterized sequences of Swiss-Prot database with high probability of being lncRNAs. Finally, in order to use the method to annotate transcripts derived from RNA-seq, previously identified lncRNAs of human, gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) and rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) were analyzed, having successfully classified 98.62%, 80.8% and 91.9%, respectively. The SVM method proposed in this work presents high performance to distinguish lncRNAs from PCTs, as shown in the results. To build the model, besides using features known in the literature regarding ORFs, we used PCA to identify features among nucleotide pattern frequencies that contribute the most in distinguishing lncRNAs from PCTs, in reference data sets. Interestingly, models created with two evolutionary distant species could distinguish lncRNAs of even more distant species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 23%
Computer Science 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,998,985
of 24,092,222 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,020
of 10,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,387
of 330,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#21
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,092,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,903 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 330,843 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.