Cited by 1,063Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classification

Streaming fragment assignment for real-time analysis of sequencing experiments

Open access
Roberts, Adam, Pachter, Lior·2013·Nature Methods

Abstract

We present eXpress, a software package for efficient probabilistic assignment of ambiguously mapping sequenced fragments. eXpress uses a streaming algorithm with linear run time and constant memory use. It can determine abundances of sequenced molecules in real time and can be applied to ChIP-seq, metagenomics and other large-scale sequencing data. We demonstrate its use on RNA-seq data and show that eXpress achieves greater efficiency than other quantification methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.2251

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Reads aligning with greater density at the 3′ end of transcripts and other confounders (for example, GC bias) caused false positives when classifying alternatively used splice sites based on predicted coverage.

    “For example, reads aligning with greater density at the 3′ end of transcripts83,84 and other confounders (for example, GC bias) caused false positives as we attempted to classify alternatively used splice sites based on predicted coverage.”

    From Predicting RNA-seq coverage from DNA sequence as a unifying model of gene regulation (2025) · cites this paper as [84]

    The paper’s main text (labeled Abstract in our copy; page unavailable) says sequence bias affects fragment prevalence at specific positions, supporting the general point that RNA-seq coverage can be uneven. It does not establish greater read density at the 3′ end of transcripts. The sentence presents the false-positive splice-site classifications as the citing authors’ own experience, not as a finding of this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The posterior probability that a read originated from one of the loci to which it aligns can be computed using an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm.

    “The posterior probability that a read originated from one of the loci to which it aligns can be computed using an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm (Li et al. 2010; Nicolae et al. 2011; Roberts and Pachter 2013; Patro et al. 2014).”
  • Algorithms that quantify expression from transcriptome mappings allocate multi-mapping reads among transcripts and output within-sample normalized values corrected for sequencing biases.

    “These methods allocate multi-mapping reads among transcript and output within-sample normalized values corrected for sequencing biases [35, 41, 43].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [41]

  • Sparse updates, where only transcripts appearing in a mini-batch are updated, allow efficient updates to the α parameters.

    “These updates are sparse; i.e., only transcripts that appeared in some alignment in mini-batch Bτ will have their global weight updated after Bτ has been processed. This ensures, as in [15], that updates to the parameters α can be performed efficiently.”
  • With enough training data, one can learn a separate bin for each read position.

    “given sufficient training data, it is even possible to learn a separate bin for each position of a read [15].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Lipman D Flicek P Salzberg S Gerstein M Knight R Genome Biology 12 3 2011 PMC3129670 21418618
  2. [9]Cappé O Moulines E Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 71 593 613 2009
  3. [10]Liang P Klein D Proceedings of NAACL 2009

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, A., & Pachter, L.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Pachter, Lior
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2013-01
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
71-73
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W1990293955
Cited by
1,063
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 83 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 1
FWCI
21.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG006129)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
Express, streaming algorithms, RNA-seq quantification, ChIP-seq, metagenomics, linear-time algorithms
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Humans, RNA, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review