↓ Skip to main content

PTESFinder: a computational method to identify post-transcriptional exon shuffling (PTES) events

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
PTESFinder: a computational method to identify post-transcriptional exon shuffling (PTES) events
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-0881-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Osagie G. Izuogu, Abd A. Alhasan, Hani M. Alafghani, Mauro Santibanez-Koref, David J. Elliott, Michael S. Jackson

Abstract

Transcripts, which have been subject to Post-transcriptional exon shuffling (PTES), have an exon order inconsistent with the underlying genomic sequence. These have been identified in a wide variety of tissues and cell types from many eukaryotes, and are now known to be mostly circular, cytoplasmic, and non-coding. Although there is no uniformly ascribed function, several have been shown to be involved in gene regulation. Accurate identification of these transcripts can, however, be difficult due to artefacts from a wide variety of sources. Here, we present a computational method, PTESFinder, to identify these transcripts from high throughput RNAseq data. Uniquely, it systematically excludes potential artefacts emanating from pseudogenes, segmental duplications, and template switching, and outputs both PTES and canonical exon junction counts to facilitate comparative analyses. In comparison with four existing methods, PTESFinder achieves highest specificity and comparable sensitivity at a variety of read depths. PTESFinder also identifies between 13 % and 41.6 % more structures, compared to publicly available methods recently used to identify human circular RNAs. With high sensitivity and specificity, user-adjustable filters that target known sources of false positives, and tailored output to facilitate comparison of transcript levels, PTESFinder will facilitate the discovery and analysis of these poorly understood transcripts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 22%
Computer Science 5 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 13 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,961,912
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#4,477
of 7,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,458
of 395,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#84
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,288 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 395,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.