Cited by 57RNA Research and SplicingBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksCancer-related molecular mechanisms research

Cosplicing network analysis of mammalian brain RNA-Seq data utilizing WGCNA and Mantel correlations

Open access
Iancu, Ovidiu D., Colville, Alexandre, Oberbeck, Denesa, Darakjian, Priscila, McWeeney, Shannon K., Hitzemann, Robert·2015·Frontiers in Genetics

Abstract

Across species and tissues and especially in the mammalian brain, production of gene isoforms is widespread. While gene expression coordination has been previously described as a scale-free coexpression network, the properties of transcriptome-wide isoform production coordination have been less studied. Here we evaluate the system-level properties of cosplicing in mouse, macaque, and human brain gene expression data using a novel network inference procedure. Genes are represented as vectors/lists of exon counts and distance measures sensitive to exon inclusion rates quantifies differences across samples. For all gene pairs, distance matrices are correlated across samples, resulting in cosplicing or cotranscriptional network matrices. We show that networks including cosplicing information are scale-free and distinct from coexpression. In the networks capturing cosplicing we find a set of novel hubs with unique characteristics distinguishing them from coexpression hubs: heavy representation in neurobiological functional pathways, strong overlap with markers of neurons and neuroglia, long coding lengths, and high number of both exons and annotated transcripts. Further, the cosplicing hubs are enriched in genes associated with autism spectrum disorders. Cosplicing hub homologs across eukaryotes show dramatically increasing intronic lengths but stable coding region lengths. Shared transcription factor binding sites increase coexpression but not cosplicing; the reverse is true for splicing-factor binding sites. Genes with protein-protein interactions have strong coexpression and cosplicing. Additional factors affecting the networks include shared microRNA binding sites, spatial colocalization within the striatum, and sharing a chromosomal folding domain. Cosplicing network patterns remain relatively stable across species.

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 · 10.3389/fgene.2015.00174

Cites

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?

  • In a gene co-expression network, expression of different transcripts originating from the same gene is usually aggregated, which can lead to biased co-expression signals.

    “In a gene co-expression network, expression of different transcripts originating from the same gene is usually aggregated, which can lead to biased co-expression signals [50].”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says gene-level expression reflects a collection of isoforms and describes representing a gene as a single value as suboptimal when exon data are available. It also finds networks incorporating splicing information distinct from gene co-expression networks. The paper does not establish that aggregating transcripts produces biased co-expression signals specifically. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • It remains difficult to assess whether new RNA-seq-specific differential co-expression tools perform better than already well-established tools such as WGCNA.

    “As a result, it remains difficult to assess whether these new tools perform better than already well-established tools such as WGCNA, which can also be used on isoform-specific expression data [50].”

    From Gene co-expression analysis for functional classification and gene–disease predictions (2017) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction and ‘Coexpression, Cosplicing, and CoSplicEx Network Construction’ section show that the authors used a WGCNA framework with exon-level RNA-seq data to study coordinated splicing. They did not apply WGCNA to estimated expression levels of individual isoforms; the Discussion distinguishes that approach from their exon-based method. The citation therefore supports WGCNA’s use with isoform-related data, but not the more specific claim about isoform-specific expression data. The preceding assessment of how difficult it is to compare new tools is not the point directly attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 57

Authors
Iancu, O. D., Colville, A., Oberbeck, D., Darakjian, P., McWeeney, S. K., & Hitzemann, R.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Iancu, Ovidiu D.
Venue
Frontiers in Genetics
Published
2015-05-13
Volume
6
Pages
174-174
ISSN
1664-8021 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1534413141
Cited by
57
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
FWCI
2.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (AA11034)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA011034, U01AA013484, AA11034, AA013484, T32AA007468, P60AA010760)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH051372, R01MH051372)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA005228, DA005228)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Research and Splicing
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Keywords
alternative splicing, mammalian brain, co-expression network, scale-free networks, network hubs, autism spectrum disorder, transcription factor binding sites, protein-protein interaction, microRNA binding sites, striatum, chromatin folding, mice, macaque, human

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