Slide 1

Slide 1 text

11 Expression Profiles in GTEx Data Amy Peterson Advisers: Andrew Jaffe, PhD Leonardo Collado-Torres, PhD

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

ABOUT ME 2 • Current MPH student, 2017-2018 • Concentration: Epidemiology & Biostatistics • Boston University • BA in Neuroscience, 2012 • Duke University Medical Center, 2012-2017 • Research Analyst, Laboratory for AIDS Vaccine Research & Development

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

EXPRESSION 3 Methods • Examine RNA expression variability across brain regions • Compute mean base-pair level coverage for all brain samples and for each of the 13 brain sub-tissues in GTEx using data from recount2 (Collado-Torres et al. 2017a, Ellis et al. 2017) • Scaled by 40 million reads of 100 base-pairs

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

EXPRESSED REGIONS 4 Expressed regions defined by global cutoff (Collado-Torres et al. 2017b)

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

5 All GTEx Samples: Mean Region Width

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

6 Overall Brain and Sub-tissues: Mean Region Width

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

7 Overall Brain and Sub-tissues: Median Region Width

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

8 Overall Brain and Sub-tissues: IQR Region Width

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

9 All GTEx Samples: Number of Regions

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

10 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: Number of Regions

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

11 All GTEx Samples: Percent of the Genome

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

12 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: Percent of the Genome

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

EXPRESSION 13 Next steps • Examine width distribution of known exons • Compare distributions from all brain samples and each of the 13 brain sub- tissues

Slide 14

Slide 14 text

14 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: Mean Disjoint Exon Length

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

15 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: Median Disjoint Exon Length

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

16 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: IQR Disjoint Exon Length

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

17 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues: Number of Disjoint Exons

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

18 Overall Brain and Sub-Tissues Exon Distribution: Percent of Genome

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

EXPRESSION 19 Collaborator suggestions: Mina Ryten Lab UCL Institute of Neurology

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

20 Expectations • Many short regions are identified together with the true exons with a skew to short regions • When the mean region length is then calculated would expect a shift to short values • When the median region length is calculated there is some protection from this effect, but it is still present Measuring noise at the “bottom” (Mina Ryten)

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

21 High cut off applied to a single tissue Expectations • Many short regions are identified together with some true exons with a skew to short regions, BUT there is less noise at the “top” than at the “bottom” • When the mean region length is then calculated would expect a shift to short values and accounts for the appearance of an optimum in the mean region length • This is dampened when you use median values because there is simply less noise at the “top” Measuring noise at the “top” (Mina Ryten)

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

22 Expectations • The noise is summed across regions and when a low cut off is used this will generate regions that effectively merge with true exons to produce long region lengths in some cases, which shift the mean upwards. • Noise at the “top” will not generate as many problems but is more likely to collapse over true exons and so the grey line starts following the rest. Collapsing noise at the “bottom” Now take another 20 noise profiles…. and combine this with a low cut off…. (Mina Ryten)

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

23 Conclusions • The cut off should be applied for each region separately • Noise at the “bottom” is a much bigger problem than noise at the “top”. • There should be an optimum solution and it might be expected to vary by tissue/expt because the factors contributing to noise at the “bottom” would be expected to vary (e.g. library prep – total RNA would be expected to increase noise at the “bottom”). • We could use exon-exon junction reads as external information to find this optimum solution. • The cut off which results in the highest usage of exon-exon junction reads is the correct cut off. • Defining “usage” might not be straight forward though and will make a difference to this (Mina Ryten)

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

24 Future Directions • Combining expressed regions across different sub-tissues at the same cutoff • Adapt derfinder to use variable cutoffs that are tissue and context-specific • Examine part of the genome that shows higher expression • Test higher cutoff, determine noise- appropriate level EXPRESSION

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

References Collado-Torres, L., Nellore, A., Kammers, K., Ellis, S.E., Taub, M.A., Hansen, K.D., Jaffe, A.E., Langmead, B. and Leek, J.T. 2017a. Reproducible RNA-seq analysis using recount2. Nature Biotechnology 35(4), pp. 319–321. Collado-Torres, L., Nellore, A., Frazee, A. C., Wilks, C., Love, M. I., Langmead, B., . . . Jaffe, A. E. 2017b. Flexible expressed region analysis for RNA-seq with derfinder. Nucleic Acids Research, 45(2), e9. doi:10.1093/nar/gkw852 Ellis, S.E., ColladoTorres, L. and Leek, J. 2017. Improving the value of public RNA-seq expression data by phenotype prediction. BioRxiv. 25