↓ Skip to main content

Alternative splicing detection workflow needs a careful combination of sample prep and bioinformatics analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Alternative splicing detection workflow needs a careful combination of sample prep and bioinformatics analysis
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-16-s9-s2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Carrara, Josephine Lum, Francesca Cordero, Marco Beccuti, Michael Poidinger, Susanna Donatelli, Raffaele Adolfo Calogero, Francesca Zolezzi

Abstract

RNA-Seq provides remarkable power in the area of biomarkers discovery and disease characterization. Two crucial steps that affect RNA-Seq experiment results are Library Sample Preparation (LSP) and Bioinformatics Analysis (BA). This work describes an evaluation of the combined effect of LSP methods and BA tools in the detection of splice variants. Different LSPs (TruSeq unstranded/stranded, ScriptSeq, NuGEN) allowed the detection of a large common set of splice variants. However, each LSP also detected a small set of unique transcripts that are characterized by a low coverage and/or FPKM. This effect was particularly evident using the low input RNA NuGEN v2 protocol. Data, derived from NuGEN v2, were not the ideal input for AltDE, especially when the exon-level approach was used. We observed that both splice variant-quantification and exon-level analysis performances were strongly dependent on the number of input reads. Moreover, the ribosomal RNA depletion protocol was less sensitive in detecting splicing variants, possibly due to the significant percentage of the reads mapping to non-coding transcripts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 28%
Computer Science 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,761,927
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,932
of 7,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,372
of 267,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#106
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,284 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 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 267,523 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.