RNA-Seq and find: entering the RNA deep field

Department of Computer Science, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. .
Genome Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.34). 11/2011; 3(11):74. DOI: 10.1186/gm290
Source: PubMed


Initial high-throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) experiments have revealed a complex and dynamic transcriptome, but because it samples transcripts in proportion to their abundances, assessing the extent and nature of low-level transcription using this technique has been difficult. A new assay, RNA CaptureSeq, addresses this limitation of RNA-Seq by enriching for low-level transcripts with cDNA tiling arrays prior to high-throughput sequencing. This approach reveals a plethora of transcripts that have been previously dismissed as 'noise', and hints at single-cell transcription fingerprints that may be crucial in defining cellular function in normal and disease states.

6 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently articles have been published disputing the main finding of the ENCODE project that the majority of the human genome exhibits biochemical indices of function, based primarily on low sequence conservation and the existence of larger genomes in some ostensibly simpler organisms (the C-value enigma), indicating the likely presence of significant amounts of junk. Here we challenge these arguments, showing that conservation is a relative measure based on circular assumptions of the non-functionality of transposon-derived sequences and uncertain comparison sets, and that regulatory sequence evolution is subject to different and much more plastic structure-function constraints than protein-coding sequences, as well as positive selection for adaptive radiation. We also show that polyploidy accounts for the higher than expected genome sizes in some eukaryotes, compounded by variable levels of repetitive sequences of unknown significance. We argue that the extent of precise dynamic and differential cell- and tissue-specific transcription and splicing observed from the majority of the human genome is a more reliable indicator of genetic function than conservation, although the unexpectedly large amount of regulatory RNA presents a conceptual challenge to the traditional protein-centric view of human genetic programming. Finally, we suggest that resistance to these findings is further motivated in some quarters by the use of the dubious concept of junk DNA as evidence against intelligent design.
    HUGO Journal 01/2013; 7(1). DOI:10.1186/1877-6566-7-2
  • Source

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The advent of next-generation sequencing technologies has revolutionized the study of genetic variation in the human genome. Whole-genome sequencing currently represents the most comprehensive strategy for variant detection genome-wide but is costly for large sample sizes, and variants detected in noncoding regions remain largely uninterpretable. By contrast, whole-exome sequencing has been widely applied in the identification of germline mutations underlying Mendelian disorders, somatic mutations in various cancers and de novo mutations in neurodevelopmental disorders. Since whole-exome sequencing focuses upon the entire set of exons in the genome (the exome), it requires additional exome-enrichment steps compared with whole-genome sequencing. Although the availability of multiple commercial exome-enrichment kits has made whole-exome sequencing technically feasible, it has also added to the overall cost. This has led to the emergence of transcriptome (or RNA) sequencing as a potential alternative approach to variant detection within protein coding regions, since the transcriptome of a given tissue represents a quasi-complete set of transcribed genes (mRNAs) and other noncoding RNAs. A further advantage of this approach is that it bypasses the need for exome enrichment. Here we discuss the relative merits and limitations of these approaches as they are applied in the context of variant detection within gene coding regions.
    Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 04/2012; 12(3):241-51. DOI:10.1586/erm.12.10 · 3.52 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview (2 Sources)

6 Reads
Available from