Back

RAFTS: A graphical tool to guide Flux Simulator transcriptome simulation for method development in de novo transcriptome assembly from short reads

Doering, M.; Stout, J. M.

2022-07-14 bioinformatics
10.1101/2022.07.13.499740 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Due to complexity of RNA transcripts expressed in any given cell or tissue, the assembly of de novo transcriptomes still represents a computational challenge when compared to genome assemblies. A number of modern transcriptome assembly algorithms have been developed to meet this challenge, and each of them have their own strengths and weaknesses dependent on the transcript abundance and complexity of the biological sample that is sequenced. As such, we are seeking to develop a transcriptome assembly pipeline in which multiple transcriptomes are generated, merged, and then redundancies are filtered out to produce a final transcriptome that should contain full length sequences of all transcripts. However, it is almost impossible to evaluate the efficacies of such novel assembly pipelines using short read sequencing data derived from biological samples due to not knowing a priori the transcript abundance and complexity. Thus, to test our pipelines we developed RAFTS. This tool is used to generate simulated short read sequencing datasets using annotated genomic data from model species.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Bioinformatics
○ 457 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
30.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 2%
18.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 24%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
4
Bioinformatics
◐ 1204 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
Similar papers in this journal
5
GigaScience
◐ 212 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Genome Biology
○ 637 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.9%
7
Bioinformatics Advances
◐ 203 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
8
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
● 242 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
9
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
10
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
◐ 242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
11
BMC Genomics
○ 406 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
12
Journal of Computational Biology
○ 48 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
13
F1000Research
○ 88 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
14
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.1%
15
in silico Plants
◐ 27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
16
BMC Research Notes
○ 33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
17
Briefings in Bioinformatics
◐ 354 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.0%
18
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
◐ 351 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Genes
○ 144 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
20
Molecular Biology of the Cell
● 311 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
21
Frontiers in Genetics
○ 230 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.6%
22
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
23
Gigabyte
● 62 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"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.