Probabilistic estimation of short sequence expression using RNA-Seq data and the “positional bootstrap”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When estimating expression of a transcript or part of a transcript using RNA-seq data, it is commonly assumed that reads are generated uniformly from positions within the transcript. While this assumption is acceptable for long transcript sequences where reads from many positions are averaged, it frequently leads to large errors for short sequences, e.g ., less than 100 bp. Analysis of short sequences, such as when studying splice junctions and microRNAs, is increasingly important and necessitates addressing errors in short-sequence expression estimation. Indeed, when we examined RNA-seq data from diverse studies, we found that large errors are introduced by variations in RNA-seq coverage due to sequence content, experimental conditions and sample preparation. We developed a technique that we call the positional bootstrap, which quantifies the level of uncertainty in expression induced by non-uniform coverage. Unlike methods that attempt to correct for biases in coverage, but do so by making strong assumptions about the form of those biases, the positional bootstrap can quantify the noise induced by all types of bias, including unknown ones. Results obtained using independently generated RNA-seq datasets show that the positional bootstrap increases the accuracy of estimates of alternative splicing levels, tissue-differential alternative splicing and tissue differential expression, by a factor of up to 10. A Python implementation of the algorithm to quantify splicing levels is freely available from github.com/PSI-Lab/BENTO-Seq.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".