Display options
Share it on

Cancer Inform. 2015 Feb 16;14:45-53. doi: 10.4137/CIN.S24832. eCollection 2015.

Mapping Splicing Quantitative Trait Loci in RNA-Seq.

Cancer informatics

Cheng Jia, Yu Hu, Yichuan Liu, Mingyao Li

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

PMID: 25733796 PMCID: PMC4333812 DOI: 10.4137/CIN.S24832

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the major mechanisms of generating mRNA diversity is alternative splicing, a regulated process that allows for the flexibility of producing functionally different proteins from the same genomic sequences. This process is often altered in cancer cells to produce aberrant proteins that drive the progression of cancer. A better understanding of the misregulation of alternative splicing will shed light on the development of novel targets for pharmacological interventions of cancer.

METHODS: In this study, we evaluated three statistical methods, random effects meta-regression, beta regression, and generalized linear mixed effects model, for the analysis of splicing quantitative trait loci (sQTL) using RNA-Seq data. All the three methods use exon-inclusion levels estimated by the PennSeq algorithm, a statistical method that utilizes paired-end reads and accounts for non-uniform sequencing coverage.

RESULTS: Using both simulated and real RNA-Seq datasets, we compared these three methods with GLiMMPS, a recently developed method for sQTL analysis. Our results indicate that the most reliable and powerful method was the random effects meta-regression approach, which identified sQTLs at low false discovery rates but higher power when compared to GLiMMPS.

CONCLUSIONS: We have evaluated three statistical methods for the analysis of sQTLs in RNA-Seq. Results from our study will be instructive for researchers in selecting the appropriate statistical methods for sQTL analysis.

Keywords: RNA-Seq; alternative splicing; quantitative trait loci

References

  1. Cancer Res. 2008 Nov 15;68(22):9525-31 - PubMed
  2. PLoS Genet. 2011 Aug;7(8):e1002218 - PubMed
  3. Genome Biol. 2013 Jul 22;14(7):R74 - PubMed
  4. J Proteome Res. 2011 Dec 2;10(12):5503-11 - PubMed
  5. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014 Feb;42(3):e20 - PubMed
  6. Nat Methods. 2010 Dec;7(12):1009-15 - PubMed
  7. Nature. 2012 Nov 1;491(7422):56-65 - PubMed
  8. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2011 Feb;64(Pt 1):1-19 - PubMed
  9. Nature. 2013 Sep 26;501(7468):506-11 - PubMed
  10. Genome Res. 2009 Apr;19(4):567-75 - PubMed
  11. Cancer Res. 2009 Jan 1;69(1):300-9 - PubMed
  12. Bioinformatics. 2009 May 1;25(9):1105-11 - PubMed
  13. Bioessays. 2006 Apr;28(4):378-86 - PubMed
  14. Nat Biotechnol. 2010 May;28(5):511-5 - PubMed
  15. Nat Genet. 2008 Feb;40(2):225-31 - PubMed
  16. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2007;39(7-8):1432-49 - PubMed
  17. Cancer Res. 2010 May 1;70(9):3440-9 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4732 - PubMed
  19. PLoS Genet. 2009 Dec;5(12):e1000766 - PubMed
  20. Nature. 2008 Nov 27;456(7221):470-6 - PubMed
  21. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Nov 1;40(20):10073-83 - PubMed
  22. Nature. 2010 Apr 1;464(7289):768-72 - PubMed
  23. PLoS Biol. 2008 Dec 23;6(12):e1 - PubMed
  24. J Proteome Res. 2014 Jan 3;13(1):212-27 - PubMed
  25. Nature. 2010 Apr 1;464(7289):773-7 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support