| Literature DB >> 23323973 |
Paul F Bray1, Steven E McKenzie, Leonard C Edelstein, Srikanth Nagalla, Kathleen Delgrosso, Adam Ertel, Joan Kupper, Yi Jing, Eric Londin, Phillipe Loher, Huang-Wen Chen, Paolo Fortina, Isidore Rigoutsos.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human blood platelets are essential to maintaining normal hemostasis, and platelet dysfunction often causes bleeding or thrombosis. Estimates of genome-wide platelet RNA expression using microarrays have provided insights to the platelet transcriptome but were limited by the number of known transcripts. The goal of this effort was to deep-sequence RNA from leukocyte-depleted platelets to capture the complex profile of all expressed transcripts.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23323973 PMCID: PMC3722126 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Summary of uniquely mapped reads
| Long, Total RNA | 85,526,881 | 30,465,049 (35.6%) |
| Long, rRNA-depleted RNA | 57,581,167 | 19,978,474 (34.7%) |
| Short RNA | 104,965,977 | 32,433,513 (30.9%) |
Shown are averages from platelet RNA for each library type and for all subjects.
Figure 1Estimates of platelet expressed mRNAs. A) Total RNA. B) rRNA-depleted RNA. The x-axis shows the RNA-seq read number in log2 ratios normalized to β-actin; the y-axis shows the number of expressed mRNAs. The result for total RNA from donor 2 N2 is an outlier with lower abundances.
Figure 2Correlation of platelet mRNA levels assessed by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR. ΔCt values obtained by qRT-PCR (y-axis) were plotted against the log2-normalized transcript determined by RNA-seq (x-axis). Both methods normalized to β-actin expression. Transcripts were considered “present” in the qRT-PCR with a cycle threshold of ≤35. RNA-seq transcripts were considered that were no lower than a normalized log2 expression value of -15 (i.e., 15 PCR cycles [≥ 1/32,768th] of β-actin expression). The transcript in the right lower quadrant represents β2-microblobulin, which is expressed at a higher level than β-actin. Black points derive from microarray; red points were selected as known, representative platelet genes.
Figure 3Correlation heatmap matrix for RNA-seq vs. microarray analysis of the platelet transcriptome. A) To compare the protein-coding transcripts as deduced from RNA-seq and previous microarray analyses (Affymetrix GeneChip and Illumina BeadChip) and also microarrays with one another, we used a Spearman correlation computed from the union of protein-encoding genes (13,691 in all) that were represented on at least one of the platforms. B) To compare the RNA-seq datasets with one another, we computed Pearson’s correlation between the genomic transcript profiles obtained by each dataset. In both A) and B), each square lists the correlation coefficient value between the corresponding profiles; also, the color-coding convention is the same in order to facilitate comparisons.
rRNA depletion alters the relative quantities of transcripts
| −1.35 to 2.23 | |
| −0.97 to 1.88 | |
| −0.18 to 2.10 | |
| −0.30 to 1.23 | |
| −0.72 to 4.06 | |
| −1.19 to 0.37 | |
| −2.50 to 2.09 |
The range (in log2-units) of the observed ratio “normalized-gene-abundance-in-total over normalized-gene-abundance-in-depleted” from four different biological samples and for genes relevant for the RNA interference pathway. Ratios were derived from pairs of total and depleted preparations generated from the same biological sample.
Figure 4Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of the platelet transcriptome by RNA-seq. Top-ranking biological processes by gene number (panels A and C) and by categories (panels B and D) that emerge from a GORILLA analysis of those protein-coding transcripts common to the four sequenced individuals. GO terms and p-values were computed and are shown separately for the total RNA (panels A and B) and the rRNA-depleted preparations (panels C and D). Note that the GO category of "coagulation" includes all aspects of platelet biology. See also Figure S1.
Long platelet RNAs antisense to protein-coding sequences
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5′UTR | 28.28 | 39.21 | 34.20 | 13.53 | 33.33 | 40.21 | 33.32 | 12.59 |
| 3′UTR | 53.87 | 64.88 | 52.59 | 23.54 | 64.18 | 62.58 | 55.78 | 21.51 |
| Exons | 52.65 | 69.80 | 59.73 | 24.01 | 56.53 | 66.36 | 59.95 | 21.46 |
| | ||||||||
| 5′UTR | 2.89 | 4.22 | 6.29 | 3.79 | 6.02 | 4.32 | 11.94 | 9.35 |
| 3′UTR | 7.77 | 8.87 | 8.86 | 7.24 | 17.61 | 7.41 | 21.97 | 12.57 |
| Exons | 11.09 | 11.32 | 12.06 | 8.61 | 14.88 | 8.84 | 25.31 | 13.20 |
Enrichment values are shown for the four samples and for sequenced long transcripts that are antisense to the 5′UTRs, 3′UTRs or full-length exons of known protein-coding transcripts. For comparison purposes, we report span enrichment and support enrichment values, separately for the total and rRNA-depleted preparations. Note the consistency of the enrichment across the four subjects and the two preparations.
Short platelet RNAs antisense to repeat elements
| DNA?.DNA? | 2.08 | LTR?.LTR? | 2.88 | ||
| | SINE.SINE | 2.05 | tRNA.tRNA | 2.38 | |
| | LINE.Dong-R4 | 1.85 | DNA?.DNA? | 2.00 | |
| | SINE?.SINE? | 1.82 | LINE.Dong-R4 | 1.95 | |
| | LTR.ERVL? | 1.80 | snRNA.snRNA | 1.76 | |
| | tRNA.tRNA | 1.79 | SINE?.SINE? | 1.75 | |
| | LINE.RTE-BovB | 1.73 | Satellite.acro | 1.70 | |
| | SINE.tRNA | 1.64 | SINE.SINE | 1.64 | |
| | rRNA.rRNA | 1.62 | Unknown.Unknown | 1.63 | |
| | snRNA.snRNA | 1.62 | scRNA.scRNA | 1.62 | |
| | DNA.hAT-Blackjack | 1.60 | LTR.ERVL? | 1.59 | |
| | DNA.TcMar-Mariner | 1.60 | SINE.tRNA | 1.57 | |
| | | | LTR.LTR | 1.55 | |
| | | | DNA.hAT-Blackjack | 1.53 | |
| | | | | | |
| DNA.Merlin | 2.68 | LINE.L1? | 2.72 | ||
| Unknown?.Unknown? | 2.35 | tRNA.tRNA | 2.49 | ||
| LTR?.LTR? | 2.14 | DNA.Merlin | 2.40 | ||
| LINE?.Penelope? | 2.02 | SINE?.SINE? | 2.09 | ||
| LINE.Dong-R4 | 1.95 | LINE.RTE-BovB | 2.02 | ||
| tRNA.tRNA | 1.83 | SINE.tRNA | 1.96 | ||
| scRNA.scRNA | 1.78 | LTR?.LTR? | 1.88 | ||
| SINE.SINE | 1.74 | rRNA.rRNA | 1.87 | ||
| LTR.ERVL? | 1.72 | DNA?.DNA? | 1.79 | ||
| SINE.tRNA | 1.69 | Unknown.Unknown | 1.71 | ||
| DNA?.DNA? | 1.66 | LINE.Dong-R4 | 1.69 | ||
| rRNA.rRNA | 1.65 | SINE.SINE | 1.64 | ||
| DNA.PiggyBac? | 1.65 | Unknown?.Unknown? | 1.56 | ||
| snRNA.snRNA | 1.62 | snRNA.snRNA | 1.55 | ||
| SINE.Deu | 1.60 | DNA.hAT-Blackjack | 1.54 | ||
| LTR.LTR | 1.59 | LTR.LTR | 1.54 | ||
| Unknown.Unknown | 1.58 | | | ||
| DNA.hAT-Blackjack | 1.55 | | | ||
| LINE.RTE-BovB | 1.54 | | | ||
| DNA.TcMar-Mariner | 1.52 | ||||
Enrichments values are shown for the four samples and for sequenced short transcripts that are antisense to known categories of repeat elements. Note the prevalence of antisense transcripts to tRNAs, LINEs, SINEs and DNA transposons. All values represent span enrichments. The use of a question mark (“?”) next to a repeat family category is inherited from RepeatMasker’s notation convention and indicates that the corresponding sequences are likely members of the stated repeat family as per RepeatMasker’s analysis.