Question: CAGE seq & RNA-seq
gravatar for Ron
6 months ago by
United States
Ron600 wrote:

Hi all,

I have read this post on CAGEseq and RNA-seq ,and about the differences in their protocols.

How can CAGE and RNA-Seq data complement each other?

Also,the paper on their comparison which shows they have similar expression profiles:

However,In terms of analysis.

1) Can we use similar tools for CAGE seq as well ? e.g. STAR for alignment and Cufflinks for getting FPKM values , Fusioncatcher for getting the fusions ?

2) Another question is if we have samples from RNAseq as well. Can we compare the CAGEseq samples vs RNAseq samples to do differential expression and clustering?



rna-seq cage-seq next-gen • 414 views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 6 months ago by Santosh Anand2.9k • written 6 months ago by Ron600

As far as I know there is no influence of the transcript length on the read counts in CAGE-Seq, so therefore FPKM normalization would be inappropriate.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by WouterDeCoster21k
gravatar for Charles Plessy
6 months ago by
Charles Plessy2.2k
Charles Plessy2.2k wrote:

To take the best from a CAGE experiment, I recommend to call peaks from the 5′ ends of the aligned CAGE reads (for instance with paraclu, and run the differential expression analysis at the peak level. Alternatively, one can just intersect the 5′ ends with promoter regions, for instance using the FANTOM5 peaks, or a region flanking the start site of GENCODE, RefSeq or the FANTOM Cat. More complicated approaches also exist, for instance RECLU.

I would not compare directly a CAGE library to a RNA-seq library: they have different purposes, and the most appropriate tools to process them differ. However, if you have a full CAGE dataset matched with a full RNA-seq dataset, you can compare the results of each analysis. In many cases, I would expect them to cross-validate, for instance when « gene A is induced by treatment T ». But you can also see a differential promoter analysis with CAGE that is not reflected in RNA-seq, or a differential splicing highlighted with RNA-seq but not reflected at the promoter level with CAGE...

ADD COMMENTlink modified 6 months ago • written 6 months ago by Charles Plessy2.2k

I just want to use FANTOM data which has different cell types and do clustering analysis with regular RNAseq data based on Expression levels.Has anybody done this kind of analysis ?

I am not interested in the primary purpose served by CAGE,thats what I mean.Since FANTOM has multiple cell types Expression data ,I just want to use them.

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by Ron600

Then you may be quite interested in the expression atlas of the FANTOM CAGE associated transcriptome (FANTOM CAT).

ADD REPLYlink written 6 months ago by Charles Plessy2.2k
gravatar for Santosh Anand
6 months ago by
Santosh Anand2.9k
Santosh Anand2.9k wrote:

IMO, you are missing the main point of CAGE, that it is done to know the exact location of TSS (Transcription Start Site) and differential promoter usage

The expression quantification part is a by-product of CAGE, and in numerous papers (see pubmed), it has been shown to correlate very well with RNA-seq data. An example

We found that the quantified levels of gene expression are largely comparable across platforms and conclude that CAGE and RNA-seq are complementary technologies that can be used to improve incomplete gene models

ADD COMMENTlink modified 6 months ago • written 6 months ago by Santosh Anand2.9k
gravatar for geek_y
6 months ago by
geek_y8.0k wrote:

Most of the data from CAGE protocol comprised of only 5' end and usually short reads. So you can not use CAGE data to study fusion, unless you have a long read PE CAGE data.

CAGE-Seq and RNA-Seq are complimentary to each other in terms of studying the gene expression levels, as long as you have data with decent coverage. I would say CAGE is more accurate as it captures the mRNAs with 5' cap.

ADD COMMENTlink written 6 months ago by geek_y8.0k
Please log in to add an answer.


Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1372 users visited in the last hour