Back

Finding ranges of optimal transcript expression quantification in cases of non-identifiability

Ma, C.; Zheng, H.; Kingsford, C.

2020-02-16 bioinformatics
10.1101/2019.12.13.875625 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Current expression quantification methods suffer from a fundamental but under-characterized type of error: the most likely estimates for transcript abundances are not unique. This means multiple estimates of transcript abundances generate the observed RNA-seq reads with equal likelihood, and the underlying true expression cannot be determined. This problem is called non-identifiability for probabilistic models, and is further exacerbated by incomplete reference transcriptome. That is, reads may be sequenced from unannotated expressed transcripts. Graph quantification is a generalization to transcript quantification, accounting for the reference incompleteness by allowing exponentially many unannotated transcripts to express reads. We propose methods to calculate a "confidence range of expression" for each transcript, representing its possible abundance across equally optimal estimates for both quantification models. This range informs both whether a transcript has potential estimation error due to non-identifiability and the extent of the error. Applying our methods to the Human Body Map data, we observe 35%-50% of transcripts potentially suffer from inaccurate quantification caused by non-identifiability. When comparing the expression between isoforms in one sample, we find that the degree of inaccuracy of 20%-47% transcripts can be so large that the ranking of expression between the transcript and its sibling isoforms cannot be determined. When comparing the expression of a transcript between two groups of RNA-seq samples in differential expression analysis, we observe that the majority of detected differentially expressed transcripts are reliable with a few exceptions after considering the ranges of the optimal expression estimates. The code for computing the range of expression is available at https://github.com/Kingsford-Group/subgraphquant. The code for the involved analyses is available at https://github.com/Kingsford-Group/subgraphquantanalysis.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.