MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016950990 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63355-3

Limits in the detection of m6A changes using MeRIP/m6A-seq

2020· article· en· W3016950990 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexa B. R. McIntyre, Nandan S. Gokhale, Leandro Cerchietti, Samie R. Jaffrey, Stacy M. Horner, Christopher E. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNational Institutes of HealthPershing Square Sohn Cancer Research AllianceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institute of Mental HealthWorldQuant FoundationAmerican Heart AssociationVallee FoundationBurroughs Wellcome FundLeukemia and Lymphoma Society
KeywordsRNA-SeqImmunoprecipitationReplicateBiologyN6-MethyladenosineComputational biologyRNAGene expressionReproducibilityGeneMolecular biologyGeneticsTranscriptomeChemistryMethylationChromatographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many cellular mRNAs contain the modified base m 6 A, and recent studies have suggested that various stimuli can lead to changes in m 6 A. The most common method to map m 6 A and to predict changes in m 6 A between conditions is methylated RNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (MeRIP-seq), through which methylated regions are detected as peaks in transcript coverage from immunoprecipitated RNA relative to input RNA. Here, we generated replicate controls and reanalyzed published MeRIP-seq data to estimate reproducibility across experiments. We found that m 6 A peak overlap in mRNAs varies from ~30 to 60% between studies, even in the same cell type. We then assessed statistical methods to detect changes in m 6 A peaks as distinct from changes in gene expression. However, from these published data sets, we detected few changes under most conditions and were unable to detect consistent changes across studies of similar stimuli. Overall, our work identifies limits to MeRIP-seq reproducibility in the detection both of peaks and of peak changes and proposes improved approaches for analysis of peak changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations259
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207