Cited by 513Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA Research and SplicingSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Systematic evaluation of spliced alignment programs for RNA-seq data

Open access
The RGASP Consortium, Engström, Pär G, Steijger, Tamara, Sipos, Botond, Grant, Gregory R, Kahles, André, Rätsch, Gunnar, Goldman, Nick +4 more·2013·Nature Methods

Abstract

Authors compare RNA-seq aligners on mouse and human data sets using benchmarks such as alignment yield, splice junction accuracy and suitability for transcript reconstruction. The work highlights the strength of each program and discusses outstanding needs in RNA-seq analysis. High-throughput RNA sequencing is an increasingly accessible method for studying gene structure and activity on a genome-wide scale. A critical step in RNA-seq data analysis is the alignment of partial transcript reads to a reference genome sequence. To assess the performance of current mapping software, we invited developers of RNA-seq aligners to process four large human and mouse RNA-seq data sets. In total, we compared 26 mapping protocols based on 11 programs and pipelines and found major performance differences between methods on numerous benchmarks, including alignment yield, basewise accuracy, mismatch and gap placement, exon junction discovery and suitability of alignments for transcript reconstruction. We observed concordant results on real and simulated RNA-seq data, confirming the relevance of the metrics employed. Future developments in RNA-seq alignment methods would benefit from improved placement of multimapped reads, balanced utilization of existing gene annotation and a reduced false discovery rate for splice junctions.

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.2722

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Gene-finding tools such as Augustus can incorporate RNA-seq data to better annotate protein-coding transcripts, but perform worse on non-coding transcripts.

    “Gene-finding tools such as Augustus [28] can incorporate RNA-seq data to better annotate protein-coding transcripts, but perform worse on non-coding transcripts [29].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [29]

  • Accurate transcript reconstruction from short reads is difficult, and methods typically show substantial disagreement.

    “In general, accurate transcript reconstruction from short reads is difficult, and methods typically show substantial disagreement [29].”

    From A survey of best practices for RNA-seq data analysis (2016) · cites this paper as [29]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The RGASP Consortium, Engström, P. G., Steijger, T., Sipos, B., Grant, G. R., Kahles, A., Rätsch, G., Goldman, N., Hubbard, T. J., Harrow, J., Guigó, R., & Bertone, P.
Affiliations
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2013-11-03
Volume
10
Issue
12
Pages
1185-1191
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2054576015
Cited by
513
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
23.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Institutional Repository (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (26205, WT09805, 098051)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  • National Institutes of Health (5u54hg004555-04)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54-HG004555, R01HG006272, U41HG007234, U54HG004557)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
RNA-seq alignment, spliced alignment, false discovery rate, genome annotation
MeSH terms
Animals, Chromosome Mapping, Exons, False Positive Reactions, Humans, RNA Splicing, RNA, Messenger, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Sequence Alignment, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, K562 Cells, Mice, 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