Nucleic Acids Research · 2019 · 172 citations · 21 references
Life SciencesBioinformaticsMolecular BiologyComputational BiologyGenomicsTranscriptomicsGenomic AnnotationNoncoding Rna BiologyNoncoding Rna TranscriptomicsRna Sequencing AnalysisTranscript Sequence AnalysisTranscriptome AnnotationAccuracyCoding Potential EstimationLong Non-coding Rna PredictionNon-coding Rna AnnotationNon-coding Rna PredictionNoncoding Rna AnnotationTranscript AnnotationTranscripts
As more and more high-throughput data has been produced by next-generation sequencing, it is still a challenge to classify RNA transcripts into protein-coding or non-coding, especially for poorly annotated species. We upgraded our original coding potential calculator, CNCI (Coding-Non-Coding Index), to CNIT (Coding-Non-Coding Identifying Tool), which provides faster and more accurate evaluation of the coding ability of RNA transcripts. CNIT runs ∼200 times faster than CNCI and exhibits more accuracy compared with CNCI (0.98 versus 0.94 for human, 0.95 versus 0.93 for mouse, 0.93 versus 0.92 for zebrafish, 0.93 versus 0.92 for fruit fly, 0.92 versus 0.88 for worm, and 0.98 versus 0.85 for Arabidopsis transcripts). Moreover, the AUC values of 11 animal species and 27 plant species showed that CNIT was capable of obtaining relatively accurate identification results for almost all eukaryotic transcripts. In addition, a mobile-friendly web server is now freely available at http://cnit.noncode.org/CNIT.
21
A ceRNA Hypothesis: The Rosetta Stone of a Hidden RNA Language?
Leonardo Salmena, Laura Poliseno, Yvonne Tay et al. · Cell · 2011 · 7.7K citations · Full text
Daniel R. Zerbino, Premanand Achuthan, Wasiu Akanni et al. · Nucleic Acids Research · 2017 · 2.8K citations · Full text