Nicolas L Bray, Harold Pimentel, Páll Melsted and Lior Pachter, Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification, Nature Biotechnology 34, 525–527 (2016), doi:10.1038/nbt.3519

Address of the bookmark: https://pachterlab.github.io/kallisto/about

Why Normalize RNA-Seq Data?

Normalization is a crucial step in RNA-Seq analysis for the following reasons:

• Sequencing depth: Different RNA-Seq experiments produce varying numbers of reads, making direct comparisons between samples misleading.

• Gene length: Longer genes inherently generate more reads, irrespective of their actual expression level.

• Bias reduction: Normalization mitigates technical biases, enabling meaningful biological interpretation.

TPM (Transcripts Per Million)

TPM measures the proportion of reads mapped to a transcript, normalized by transcript length and sequencing depth. It is calculated as:

Key Features:

1. Proportionality: TPM values sum to 1,000,000 across all transcripts in a sample, making it easier to compare between samples.

2. Intuitive interpretation: TPM values directly represent the abundance of transcripts in a sample.

3. Preferred for comparisons: TPM facilitates between-sample comparisons better than FPKM.

FPKM (Fragments Per Kilobase Million)

FPKM normalizes read counts by transcript length and sequencing depth, but without enforcing proportionality like TPM. It is defined as:

Key Features:

1. Historical significance: FPKM was one of the first normalization methods used for RNA-Seq.

2. Single-end vs. paired-end: In paired-end sequencing, FPKM becomes RPKM (Reads Per Kilobase Million).

3. Limited utility: FPKM values are not as robust as TPM for cross-sample comparisons due to lack of proportionality.

CPM (Counts Per Million)

CPM normalizes raw read counts by sequencing depth, without considering gene length. It is expressed as:

Key Features:

1. Simplicity: CPM is straightforward and computationally less intensive.

2. Application: Suitable for non-length-dependent analyses, such as comparing total expression levels or differential expression analysis.

3. Gene length agnostic: CPM does not correct for gene length, making it less ideal for measuring expression levels.

When to Use Each Method

• TPM: Best for comparing expression levels between samples, especially when transcript length and sequencing depth vary.

• FPKM: Useful for historical consistency but generally replaced by TPM.

• CPM: Ideal for differential expression analysis when gene length normalization is unnecessary.

Conclusion

Choosing the right normalization method depends on the specific objectives of your RNA-Seq analysis. TPM’s proportionality and robustness make it the preferred choice for most applications, while CPM serves well for differential expression studies. Although FPKM paved the way for RNA-Seq normalization, it has largely been supplanted by TPM in modern workflows. Understanding these methods and their nuances ensures accurate and meaningful interpretations of RNA-Seq data.

References:

1. Li, B., & Dewey, C. N. (2011). RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics.

2. Trapnell, C., et al. (2010). Transcript assembly and quantification by RNA-Seq reveals unannotated transcripts and isoform switching during cell differentiation. Nature Biotechnology.

3. Law, C. W., et al. (2014). voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biology.

Address of the bookmark: https://bioconductor.org/packages/3.7/bioc/vignettes/dupRadar/inst/doc/dupRadar.html

Address of the bookmark: https://gvolante.riken.jp/analysis.html

Address of the bookmark: http://pacb.com/blog/the-hifi-difference-true-long-reads-vs-synthetic-long-reads/

• Assembly of nanopore reads using Canu.
• Polish canu contigs using racon (optional).
• Map a paired-end Illumina dataset onto the contigs obtained in the previous steps using BWA mem.
• Perform correction of contigs using pilon and the Illumina dataset.

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/nanoporetech/ont-assembly-polish

• dnaPipeTE is developped by Clément Goubert, Laurent Modolo and the TREEP team of the LBBE: http://lbbe.univ-lyon1.fr/-Equipe-Elements-transposables-.html?lang=en

• You can find the original publication in GBE here: https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/7/4/1192/533768

output examples of quantification and TE landscape (relative age) produced by dnaPipeTE

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/clemgoub/dnaPipeTE

Ra is in development since 2014 in the form of several separate components that used to be run individually.
This project aims to ease the usage of Ra by integrating it into a complete de novo assembly tool.

Unlike other state-of-the-art assemblers, Ra does not have an error correction step. Instead, it relies on detecting overlaps using a very sensitive and specific overlapper ("graphmap -w owler", https://github.com/isovic/graphmap) and constructing and reducing an overlap graph (Ra layout, https://github.com/mariokostelac/ra).

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/mariokostelac/ra-integrate/

Using AlignGraph

AlignGraph --read1 reads_1.fa --read2 reads_2.fa --contig contigs.fa --genome genome.fa --distanceLow distanceLow --distanceHigh distancehigh --extendedContig extendedContigs.fa --remainingContig remainingContigs.fa [--kMer k --insertVariation insertVariation --coverage coverage --part p --fastMap --ratioCheck --iterativeMap --misassemblyRemoval --resume]

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/baoe/AlignGraph

The tool should be compatible with most UNIX flavors and has been successfully tested on the following operating systems:

• Mac OS X 10.11.1
• Mac OS X 10.10.3
• Ubuntu 14.04 LTS

Address of the bookmark: https://github.com/mculinovic/EAGLER