Comparative analysis of eccDNA and circRNA tools shows increased accuracy of tool combination.

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
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.

eccDNA和circRNA工具的对比分析表明,工具组合的准确性有所提高。
环状核酸如染色体外环状DNA (eccDNA)和环状RNA (circRNA)因其生物学相关性和在疾病背景下作为生物标志物的潜力而日益得到认可。尽管它们越来越重要,但由于工具特定的偏差、有限的验证框架以及跨数据集性能的高度可变性,它们的检测仍然具有挑战性。方法:我们在不同条件下使用模拟和生物数据集对10种循环检测工具进行基准测试。我们的评估包括经典的性能指标和一个新的读取分布对称的内部测量(ΔCJ)来评估圈预测的置信度。我们探讨了测序协议、过滤策略和组合工具共识的影响。结果:我们发现检测精度受到测序深度、比对算法和实验富集协议的高度影响。ΔCJ在标记潜在的假阳性圆圈方面被证明是有效的,显示出Intersect(所有工具检测到的圆圈)和Rosette(由≥2个工具检测到的圆圈)组合的准确性提高。讨论:本研究对圆形检测工具进行了广泛的评估,表明≥3种工具的组合对于正确预测是必要的。这些见解将为未来实验和临床环境中的实验设计和数据分析管道提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
GigaScience
GigaScience MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
15.50
自引率
1.10%
发文量
119
审稿时长
1 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书