Aitor Zabala, Alex M Ascensión, Iñigo Prada-Luengo, David Otaegui
{"title":"Comparative analysis of eccDNA and circRNA tools shows increased accuracy of tool combination.","authors":"Aitor Zabala, Alex M Ascensión, Iñigo Prada-Luengo, David Otaegui","doi":"10.1093/gigascience/giag017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Circular nucleic acids such as extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) and circular RNA (circRNA) are increasingly recognized for their biological relevance and potential as biomarkers in disease contexts. Despite their growing importance, their detection remains challenging due to tool-specific biases, limited validation frameworks, and high variability in performance across datasets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We benchmarked 10 circle detection tools across diverse conditions using both simulated and biological datasets. Our evaluation included classical performance metrics and a novel internal measure of read distribution symmetry ($\\Delta$CJ) to assess circle prediction confidence. We explored the impact of sequencing protocols, filtering strategies, and combined tool consensus.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that detection accuracy was highly influenced by sequencing depth, alignment algorithm, and experimental enrichment protocols. $\\Delta$CJ proved effective in flagging potential false positive circles, showing improved accuracy of Intersect (circles detected by all tools) and Rosette (circles detected by $\\ge$2 tools) combinations.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This study offers a broad evaluation of circular detection tools, suggesting that the combination of $\\ge$3 tools is necessary for a correct prediction. These insights will inform future experimental design and data analysis pipelines in both experimental and clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12581,"journal":{"name":"GigaScience","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13154841/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GigaScience","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giag017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Circular nucleic acids such as extrachromosomal circular DNA (eccDNA) and circular RNA (circRNA) are increasingly recognized for their biological relevance and potential as biomarkers in disease contexts. Despite their growing importance, their detection remains challenging due to tool-specific biases, limited validation frameworks, and high variability in performance across datasets.
Methods: We benchmarked 10 circle detection tools across diverse conditions using both simulated and biological datasets. Our evaluation included classical performance metrics and a novel internal measure of read distribution symmetry ($\Delta$CJ) to assess circle prediction confidence. We explored the impact of sequencing protocols, filtering strategies, and combined tool consensus.
Results: We found that detection accuracy was highly influenced by sequencing depth, alignment algorithm, and experimental enrichment protocols. $\Delta$CJ proved effective in flagging potential false positive circles, showing improved accuracy of Intersect (circles detected by all tools) and Rosette (circles detected by $\ge$2 tools) combinations.
Discussion: This study offers a broad evaluation of circular detection tools, suggesting that the combination of $\ge$3 tools is necessary for a correct prediction. These insights will inform future experimental design and data analysis pipelines in both experimental and clinical settings.
期刊介绍:
GigaScience seeks to transform data dissemination and utilization in the life and biomedical sciences. As an online open-access open-data journal, it specializes in publishing "big-data" studies encompassing various fields. Its scope includes not only "omic" type data and the fields of high-throughput biology currently serviced by large public repositories, but also the growing range of more difficult-to-access data, such as imaging, neuroscience, ecology, cohort data, systems biology and other new types of large-scale shareable data.