↓ Skip to main content

Limitations of alignment-free tools in total RNA-seq quantification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
48 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
353 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
Limitations of alignment-free tools in total RNA-seq quantification
Published in
BMC Genomics, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4869-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Douglas C. Wu, Jun Yao, Kevin S. Ho, Alan M. Lambowitz, Claus O. Wilke

Abstract

Alignment-free RNA quantification tools have significantly increased the speed of RNA-seq analysis. However, it is unclear whether these state-of-the-art RNA-seq analysis pipelines can quantify small RNAs as accurately as they do with long RNAs in the context of total RNA quantification. We comprehensively tested and compared four RNA-seq pipelines for accuracy of gene quantification and fold-change estimation. We used a novel total RNA benchmarking dataset in which small non-coding RNAs are highly represented along with other long RNAs. The four RNA-seq pipelines consisted of two commonly-used alignment-free pipelines and two variants of alignment-based pipelines. We found that all pipelines showed high accuracy for quantifying the expression of long and highly-abundant genes. However, alignment-free pipelines showed systematically poorer performance in quantifying lowly-abundant and small RNAs. We have shown that alignment-free and traditional alignment-based quantification methods perform similarly for common gene targets, such as protein-coding genes. However, we have identified a potential pitfall in analyzing and quantifying lowly-expressed genes and small RNAs with alignment-free pipelines, especially when these small RNAs contain biological variations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 48 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 353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 353 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 22%
Researcher 76 22%
Student > Master 42 12%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 5%
Other 42 12%
Unknown 68 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 124 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 23%
Computer Science 17 5%
Engineering 10 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 3%
Other 28 8%
Unknown 85 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 17 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,107,812
of 24,744,050 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#171
of 11,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,077
of 333,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#3
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,744,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,058 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 333,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 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 99% of its contemporaries.