Cited by 18

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

VARUS: sampling complementary RNA reads from the sequence read archive

Stanke, Mario, Bruhn, Willy, Becker, Felix, Hoff, Katharina J.·2019·BMC Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Vast amounts of next generation sequencing RNA data has been deposited in archives, accompanying very diverse original studies. The data is readily available also for other purposes such as genome annotation or transcriptome assembly. However, selecting a subset of available experiments, sequencing runs and reads for this purpose is a nontrivial task and complicated by the inhomogeneity of the data. Results: This article presents the software VARUS that selects, downloads and aligns reads from NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, given only the species’ binomial name and genome. VARUS automatically chooses runs from among all archived runs to randomly select subsets of reads. The objective of its online algorithm is to cover a large number of transcripts adequately when network bandwidth and computing resources are limited. For most tested species VARUS achieved both a higher sensitivity and specificity with a lower number of downloaded reads than when runs were manually selected. At the example of twelve eukaryotic genomes, we show that RNA-Seq that was sampled with VARUS is well-suited for fully-automatic genome annotation with BRAKER. Conclusions: With VARUS, genome annotation can be automatized to the extent that not even the selection and quality control of RNA-Seq has to be done manually. This introduces the possibility to have fully automatized genome annotation loops over potentially many species without incurring a loss of accuracy over a manually supervised annotation process.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s12859-019-3182-x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • In Stanke et al. (2019), a manual selection of libraries from different experiments and tissues was compared with an automatic sampling from diverse libraries for complementary data; the latter yields, on average, slightly better performances in BRAKER1 when the number of reads was similar.

    “In their study, a manual selection of libraries from different experiments and tissues was compared with an automatic sampling from diverse libraries for complementary data. The latter yields, on average, slightly better performances in BRAKER1 when the number of reads was similar.”

    From BRAKER3: Fully automated genome annotation using RNA-seq and protein evidence with GeneMark-ETP, AUGUSTUS, and TSEBRA (2024) · cites this paper as Stanke et al. (2019)

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Stanke et al. (2019) investigated the impact of an RNA-seq sampling method on the performance of BRAKER1.

    “However, Stanke et al. (2019) investigated the impact of an RNA-seq sampling method on the performance of BRAKER1.”

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Leinonen R, Sugawara H, Shumway M, International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration. The sequence read archive. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 39(suppl_1):19–21.
  2. Sequence Read Archive Growth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/docs/sragrowth/ . Accessed 2 Nov 2019.
  3. Costa-Silva J, Domingues D, Lopes FM. RNA-Seq differential expression analysis: An extended review and a software tool. PloS ONE. 2017; 12(12):0190152. · DOI
  4. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(1):139–40. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Ohta T, Nakazato T, Bono H. Calculating the quality of public high-throughput sequencing data to obtain a suitable subset for reanalysis from the Sequence Read Archive. GigaScience. 2017; 6(6):029. · DOI
  6. Kim D, Langmead B, Salzberg SL. HISAT: a fast spliced aligner with low memory requirements. Nat Methods. 2015; 12(4):357. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Dobin A, Davis CA, Schlesinger F, Drenkow J, Zaleski C, Jha S, Batut P, Chaisson M, Gingeras TR. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(1):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts635 . · DOI · Paper page
  8. Gremme G, Steinbiss S, Kurtz S. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB). 2013; 10(3):645–56. · DOI
  9. Hoff K. J, Lange S, Lomsadze A, Borodovsky M, Stanke M. BRAKER1: unsupervised RNA-Seq-based genome annotation with GeneMark-ET and AUGUSTUS. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(5):767–9. · DOI
  10. Lomsadze A, Burns PD, Borodovsky M. Integration of mapped RNA-Seq reads into automatic training of eukaryotic gene finding algorithm. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(15):119. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Stanke M, Diekhans M, Baertsch R, Haussler D. Using native and syntenically mapped cDNA alignments to improve de novo gene finding. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(5):637. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hoff K. J, Stanke M. Predicting genes in single genomes with augustus. Curr Protoc Bioinforma. 2019; 65(1):57. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpbi.57 . · DOI · Paper page
  13. Keibler E, Brent MR. Eval: a software package for analysis of genome annotations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2003; 4(1):50. · DOI
  14. Pertea M, Pertea GM, Antonescu CM, Chang T-C, Mendell JT, Salzberg SL. StringTie enables improved reconstruction of a transcriptome from RNA-seq reads. Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33(3):290. · DOI
  15. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R. The sequence alignment/map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(16):2078–9. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stanke, M., Bruhn, W., Becker, F., & Hoff, K. J.
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2019-11-08
Volume
20
Issue
1
ISSN
1471-2105
Cited by
18
References
1
Language
en

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