ArticleJournal of virology2022
Accurate Quantification of Overlapping Herpesvirus Transcripts from RNA Sequencing Data.
Article in Journal of virology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epstein-Barr virus induces host shutoff extensively via BGLF5-independent mechanisms.Cell reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- A comprehensive single cell data analysis of lymphoblastoid cells reveals the role of super-enhancers in maintaining EBV latency.Journal of medical virology · 2023Article
- Rta is the principal activator of Epstein-Barr virus epithelial lytic transcription.PLoS pathogens · 2022Article
- Reduced IRF4 expression promotes lytic phenotype in Type 2 EBV-infected B cells.PLoS pathogens · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Herpesviruses employ extensive bidirectional transcription of overlapping genes to overcome length constraints on their gene product repertoire. As a consequence, many lytic transcripts cannot be measured individually by reverse transcription-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) or conventional RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) analysis. A. G. Bruce, S. Barcy, T. DiMaio, E. Gan, et al. (Pathogens 6:11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens6010011) have proposed an approximation method using unique coding sequences (UCDS) to estimate lytic gene abundance from Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) RNA-seq data. Although UCDS has been widely employed, its accuracy, to our knowledge, has never been rigorously validated for any herpesvirus. In this study, we use cap analysis of gene expression sequencing (CAGE-seq) as a gold-standard to determine the accuracy of UCDS for estimating Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) lytic gene expression levels from RNA-seq data. We also introduce the Unique TranScript (UTS) method, which, like UCDS, estimates transcript abundance from changes in mean RNA-seq read depth. UTS is distinguished by its use of empirically determined 5' and 3' transcript ends rather than coding sequence annotations. Compared to conventional read assignment, both UCDS and UTS improved the accuracy of quantitation of overlapping genes, with UTS giving the most-accurate results. The UTS method discards fewer reads and may be advantageous for experiments with less sequencing depth. UTS is compatible with any aligner and, unlike isoform-aware alignment methods, can be implemented on a laptop computer. Our findings demonstrate that the accuracy achieved by complex and expensive techniques such as CAGE-seq can be approximated using conventional short-read RNA-seq data when read assignment methods address transcript overlap. Although our study focuses on EBV transcription, the UTS method should be applicable across all herpesviruses as well as to other genomes with extensively overlapping transcriptomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.