2017
DOI: 10.1101/132761
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identifying differential isoform abundance with RATs: a universal tool and a warning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We assessed two other methods for DTU, SUPPA2 38 and RATs 39 , both of which can take Salmon quantifications as input. For statistical testing of DTU, SUPPA2 computes, for a given transcript, the difference in proportion across condition and the differences in proportion seen between biological replicates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assessed two other methods for DTU, SUPPA2 38 and RATs 39 , both of which can take Salmon quantifications as input. For statistical testing of DTU, SUPPA2 computes, for a given transcript, the difference in proportion across condition and the differences in proportion seen between biological replicates.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instead of more time consuming read alignments, it uses a k -mer approach for quantifying the abundance of transcripts in RNA-seq experiments [ 18 ]. More recently, two R packages, sleuth and RATs (Relative Abundance of Transcripts), were developed that exploit the bootstrap estimates from kallisto to identify events of differential transcript expression and differential transcript usage, respectively [ 19 , 20 ]. Differential transcript expression (DTE) is any change in the relative abundance of a transcript between two conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that estimating gene abundances by summing counts from the underlying transcripts can be problematic, as discussed in [18]. RATs [19] on the other hand is among those methods that target to capture such behavior and tests for differential transcript usage (DTU). Regardless of the testing objective, both tests entirely depend on the transcript abundances that were obtained from algorithms like EM during the quantification step to resolve the ambiguity of the multimapped reads, which adherently requires some bias-correction modeling ( [8]) adding another layer of complexity to achieve the final goal of gene analysis.…”
Section: Segment-based Gene Expression Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%