SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
tophat in background sbrohee Bioinformatics 1 10-12-2011 06:39 AM
ChIPseq on tissue - eliminating background Theorbe27 Epigenetics 4 06-23-2011 08:53 AM
BWA in the background ercfrtz Bioinformatics 7 04-21-2011 08:04 AM
newbie- need some good background kaikat Sample Prep / Library Generation 5 03-24-2011 10:40 AM
newbler background Tom Bair 454 Pyrosequencing 11 10-26-2009 12:12 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-14-2011, 11:43 AM   #1
nivea
Member
 
Location: NC

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Question background for RNAseq

Does anyone think the peaks in non-coding region could be some bias or random events, rather than some potential ncRNA? BTW, the organism is prokaryotic. Thanks!

Last edited by nivea; 12-14-2011 at 02:11 PM.
nivea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 12:39 PM   #2
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

Google "pervasive transcription."

I think there is far more "noise" in transcription than people give credit too. Of course there is far from any consensus on the matter.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1000371
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1000625
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001102

RNA Polymerase II can have a lot of false starts, producing transcripts that may or may not be functional:

http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v...b0207-103.html
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 02:05 PM   #3
nivea
Member
 
Location: NC

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Default

Thanks chadn737. But my genome is a bacterial genome... So I'm wondering except for the situation of ncRNA, can these peaks found in the non-transcribed regions are generated by some sequencing bias or just random events?
nivea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 01:24 AM   #4
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

It is extremely unlikely that the sequencer randomly comes up with a sequence that actually maps to your genome unless this sequence was actually in the sample. So, this is definitely not a technical proble -- the non-coding sequences were in your sample, and so they were also transcribed by your cells. (Alternatively, it could be genomic DNA that sneaked into your RNA sample.)

Why do you think that it makes a difference that your sample is prokaryotic?
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 08:09 AM   #5
nivea
Member
 
Location: NC

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Anders View Post
It is extremely unlikely that the sequencer randomly comes up with a sequence that actually maps to your genome unless this sequence was actually in the sample. So, this is definitely not a technical proble -- the non-coding sequences were in your sample, and so they were also transcribed by your cells. (Alternatively, it could be genomic DNA that sneaked into your RNA sample.)

Why do you think that it makes a difference that your sample is prokaryotic?
Thanks Simon. But based on my understanding, the "pervasive transcription" in the mammalian genomes include the transcribed regions outside coding gene, anti-sense RNAs and other non-coding RNAs. In other words, some intergenic regions just purely transcribed without turning into any functional product (non-coding RNAs, antisense RNAs). In the case of prokaryotes, I don't know for sure...

Like you said, the small peaks in the intergenic regions could be genomic DNA. Or it could also be novel ncRNAs with low expression level. If it's the previous situation, I can consider it as a noise in my background, and include it into my negative set for training; but if it's the latter case, I should definitely exclude the peak region to train my negative set.

BTW, when I mapped the reads to the reference genome, I only kept the uniquely mapped reads with tolerance of 3 mismatches. The read length is 100nt. Therefore, I don't think the small peaks are mapping artifacts...
nivea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 08:21 AM   #6
biznatch
Senior Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Would gDNA contamination actually make a peak? I wouldn't think so...
biznatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 10:07 AM   #7
Simon Anders
Senior Member
 
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 994
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biznatch View Post
Would gDNA contamination actually make a peak? I wouldn't think so...
Exactly. So it is actual RNA. Not that surprising, I think. After all, nobody says it is functional.
Simon Anders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2011, 07:26 AM   #8
nivea
Member
 
Location: NC

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
Google "pervasive transcription."

I think there is far more "noise" in transcription than people give credit too. Of course there is far from any consensus on the matter.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1000371
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1000625
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/i...l.pbio.1001102

RNA Polymerase II can have a lot of false starts, producing transcripts that may or may not be functional:

http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v...b0207-103.html
Thanks chadn737, I think the paper you forwarded are very helpful
nivea is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO