Cited by 502Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesRNA Research and SplicingSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

Effect of read-mapping biases on detecting allele-specific expression from RNA-sequencing data.

Open access
Degner, Jacob F., Marioni, John C., Pai, Athma A., Pickrell, Joseph K., Nkadori, Everlyne, Gilad, Yoav, Pritchard, Jonathan K.·2009·Bioinformatics

Abstract

Motivation: Next-generation sequencing has become an important tool for genome-wide quantification of DNA and RNA. However, a major technical hurdle lies in the need to map short sequence reads back to their correct locations in a reference genome. Here, we investigate the impact of SNP variation on the reliability of read-mapping in the context of detecting allele-specific expression (ASE). Results: We generated 16 million 35 bp reads from mRNA of each of two HapMap Yoruba individuals. When we mapped these reads to the human genome we found that, at heterozygous SNPs, there was a significant bias toward higher mapping rates of the allele in the reference sequence, compared with the alternative allele. Masking known SNP positions in the genome sequence eliminated the reference bias but, surprisingly, did not lead to more reliable results overall. We find that even after masking, ∼5–10% of SNPs still have an inherent bias toward more effective mapping of one allele. Filtering out inherently biased SNPs removes 40% of the top signals of ASE. The remaining SNPs showing ASE are enriched in genes previously known to harbor cis-regulatory variation or known to show uniparental imprinting. Our results have implications for a variety of applications involving detection of alternate alleles from short-read sequence data. Availability: Scripts, written in Perl and R, for simulating short reads, masking SNP variation in a reference genome and analyzing the simulation output are available upon request from JFD. Raw short read data were deposited in GEO (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) under accession number GSE18156. Contact: jdegner@uchicago.edu; marioni@uchicago.edu; gilad@uchicago.edu; pritch@uchicago.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp579

Cites

18 of 18 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 perfectly matching the reference genome were assigned to the reference allele, while reads with at least one difference from the reference genome were assigned to an alternative allele.

    “Reads perfectly matching the reference genome were assigned to the reference allele, while reads with at least one difference from the reference genome were assigned to an alternative allele.”

    From Sources of bias in measures of allele-specific expression derived from RNA-seq data aligned to a single reference genome (2013) · cites this paper as Degner et al. [14]

    Methods §2.2 says reads could be mapped with fewer than three mismatching bases, so a read did not need to match the reference genome perfectly to be counted. Allele counts were determined by the base observed at a heterozygous SNP, not by whether the read had any difference anywhere from the reference genome. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The rationale for N-masking in allele-specific alignments is that mapping bias towards the reference allele is eliminated and both alleles of the same read get placed in the same position in the genome equally well.

    “The rationale for N-masking in allele-specific alignments is that the mapping bias towards the reference allele is eliminated and both alleles of the same read get placed in the same position in the genome equally well.”

    From SNPsplit: Allele-specific splitting of alignments between genomes with known SNP genotypes (2016) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Results (section 3; page not provided) say SNP masking eliminated the overall reference-allele bias in simulated and real data. But masking did not eliminate strong biases at individual SNPs: the paper explains that either allele can match another genomic location and map differently. Thus the claim that both alleles are placed at the same position equally well is not supported as a general outcome. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Simulated datasets contained either ~10-fold or ~100-fold more differentiating sites than the human genotypes used to validate other methods for measuring relative allele-specific expression.

    “Simulated datasets contained either ~10-fold or ~100-fold more differentiating sites than the human genotypes used to validate other methods for measuring relative ASE [14,18,20].”

    From Sources of bias in measures of allele-specific expression derived from RNA-seq data aligned to a single reference genome (2013) · cites this paper as [14]

    Methods §2.2 describes using human HapMap genotypes to measure allele-specific expression, and Results §3 reports 1,981 heterozygous SNPs meeting the read threshold. The paper does not establish that the citing document’s simulated datasets had approximately 10 or 100 times as many differentiating sites, so the numerical comparison is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Controlling for sites known to be polymorphic in humans prior to aligning simulated reads produced symmetrical measures of relative allele-specific expression, showing that the differentiating sites themselves caused the bias.

    “Controlling for sites known to be polymorphic in humans prior to aligning the simulated reads produced symmetrical measures of relative ASE, showing that the differentiating sites themselves caused this bias.”

    From Sources of bias in measures of allele-specific expression derived from RNA-seq data aligned to a single reference genome (2013) · cites this paper as Degner et al. [14]

    The Results report that masking known SNP sites before mapping eliminated the overall reference-allele bias in simulated and real data. But strong biases remained at individual SNPs; the Results attribute these to similarities between flanking sequences and other genomic regions. Thus, the paper does not show that the differentiating sites themselves caused the bias. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Genetic variants that distinguish individual genomes from the reference sequence can cause reads to be misaligned, resulting in biased estimates of transcript abundance.

    “Genetic variants that distinguish individual genomes from the reference sequence can cause reads to be misaligned, resulting in biased estimates of transcript abundance.”

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

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Degner, J. F., Marioni, J. C., Pai, A. A., Pickrell, J. K., Nkadori, E., Gilad, Y., & Pritchard, J. K.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Degner, Jacob F.
  • Marioni, John C.
  • Gilad, Yoav
  • Pritchard, Jonathan K.
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2009-10-06
Volume
25
Issue
24
Pages
3207-3212
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W2113312463
Cited by
502
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 28
FWCI
9.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Yale University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH084703)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM077959, R01GM077959, T 532 GM007197-34, T32GM007197)
  • Argonne National Laboratory
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
allele-specific expression, single nucleotide polymorphisms, heterozygous SNPs, RNA sequencing, cis-regulatory variation
MeSH terms
Alleles, Base Sequence, Humans, Software, Genome, Human, Sequence Analysis, RNA, Computational Biology, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Gene Expression Profiling

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