Question: Splicing-defect analysis with RNA-seq paired-end data
0
gravatar for Carlo Yague
5.2 years ago by
Carlo Yague5.2k
Canada
Carlo Yague5.2k wrote:

Hi guys,

I'm working with a mutant that is supposed to show gene-specific splicing defect (1), readthrough (2) and spurious transcription (3). From paired-end strand-specific RNA-seq data, what would you do to identify the affected loci ? How would you communicate (in terms of figures) the results ?

I was thinking running DESeq on introns (1) and 5'/3' flanking sequences (2) while keeping the normalization on the exon read count. Or maybe just use the ratio (reads mapping on intron)/(reads mapping on exons) What do you think of this approach ?

I'd really appreciate any input on this ! Thanks in advance !

Carlo

rna-seq splicing • 1.6k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 5.2 years ago • written 5.2 years ago by Carlo Yague5.2k
1

This sounds like a reasonable approach. I had an issue where an RNA-seq protocol seemed to deplete coverage of a small number of genes, but only over the coding sequence (approximately). I was able to come up with a good list of affected genes just by comparing my bam files to a customized gff file with separate "gene" annotations for 5' UTR, CDS, and 3'UTR, using bedtools intersect. The ratios of reads in these three feature categories, when matched up per-gene, was sufficient to find affected genes (assuming I didn't miss a whole class).

I wonder if Cufflinks might also be effective, in its prediction of novel transcripts? You might expect a "spike" in novel transcript predictions, or fpkm for those novel transcripts. This is probably overkill (computation time-wise).

ADD REPLYlink written 5.2 years ago by Joseph Pearson450

Thanks for your input and suggestion ! Once you had the ratios, did you just use a treshold to separate true affected transcript from noise ?

I'll look into Cufflinks too.

ADD REPLYlink modified 5.2 years ago • written 5.2 years ago by Carlo Yague5.2k
1

I just filtered for a minimum read count per kb of my 5'UTR, then sorted by ratio. I bet a similar approach would work well.

ADD REPLYlink written 5.2 years ago by Joseph Pearson450
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 2150 users visited in the last hour