Allelic Expression of Deleterious Protein-Coding Variants across Human Tissues

Personal exome and genome sequencing provides access to loss-of-function and rare deleterious alleles whose interpretation is expected to provide insight into individual disease burden. However, for each allele, accurate interpretation of its effect will depend on both its penetrance and the trait's expressivity. In this regard, an important factor that can modify the effect of a pathogenic coding allele is its level of expression; a factor which itself characteristically changes across tissues. To better inform the degree to which pathogenic alleles can be modified by expression level across multiple tissues, we have conducted exome, RNA and deep, targeted allele-specific expression (ASE) sequencing in ten tissues obtained from a single individual. By combining such data, we report the impact of rare and common loss-of-function variants on allelic expression exposing stronger allelic bias for rare stop-gain variants and informing the extent to which rare deleterious coding alleles are consistently expressed across tissues. This study demonstrates the potential importance of transcriptome data to the interpretation of pathogenic protein-coding variants

Improved annotation with <i>de novo</i> transcriptome assembly in four social amoeba species

Background: Annotation of gene models and transcripts is a fundamental step in genome sequencing projects. Often this is performed with automated prediction pipelines, which can miss complex and atypical genes or transcripts. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) data can aid the annotation with empirical data. Here we present de novo transcriptome assemblies generated from RNA-seq data in four Dictyostelid species: D. discoideum, P. pallidum, D. fasciculatum and D. lacteum. The assemblies were incorporated with existing gene models to determine corrections and improvement on a whole-genome scale. This is the first time this has been performed in these eukaryotic species. Results: An initial de novo transcriptome assembly was generated by Trinity for each species and then refined with Program to Assemble Spliced Alignments (PASA). The completeness and quality were assessed with the Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs (BUSCO) and Transrate tools at each stage of the assemblies. The final datasets of 11,315-12,849 transcripts contained 5,610-7,712 updates and corrections to >50% of existing gene models including changes to hundreds or thousands of protein products. Putative novel genes are also identified and alternative splice isoforms were observed for the first time in P. pallidum, D. lacteum and D. fasciculatum. Conclusions: In taking a whole transcriptome approach to genome annotation with empirical data we have been able to enrich the annotations of four existing genome sequencing projects. In doing so we have identified updates to the majority of the gene annotations across all four species under study and found putative novel genes and transcripts which could be worthy for follow-up. The new transcriptome data we present here will be a valuable resource for genome curators in the Dictyostelia and we propose this effective methodology for use in other genome annotation projects

Identifying RNA editing sites using RNA sequencing data alone

We show that RNA editing sites can be called with high confidence using RNA sequencing data from multiple samples across either individuals or species, without the need for matched genomic DNA sequence. We identified many previously unidentified editing sites in both humans and Drosophila; our results nearly double the known number of human protein recoding events. We also found that human genes harboring conserved editing sites within Alu repeats are enriched for neuronal functions

Comment on "Widespread RNA and DNA sequence differences in the human transcriptome"

Li et al. (Research Articles, 1 July 2011, p. 53; published online 19 May 2011) reported widespread differences between the RNA and DNA sequences of the same human cells, including all 12 possible mismatch types. Before accepting such a fundamental claim, a deeper analysis of the sequencing data is required to discern true differences between RNA and DNA from potential artifacts