PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 5, 2026Cancer Research0 citations

Abstract 4180: Protocol-specific and coverage-based RNA-seq metrics characterize RNA integrity signatures across cohorts

View Full Paper
MYMiyeon YeonWCWonyoung ChoiJLJin‐Young Lee

Key Points

  • To determine if RNA-seq coverage profiles can accurately assess RNA quality regardless of sequencing protocol.
  • Developed metrics for assessing RNA quality including Degradation Score (DS) for mRNA-seq and window Coefficient of Variation (wCV) for total RNA-seq.
  • Applied the metrics to over 2,600 RNA-seq profiles from different cohorts and sequencing strategies.
  • Modelled variations in per-base coverage to identify low-quality RNA patterns.
  • Coverage metrics showed strong correlations with conventional quality control measures (|r|=0.52-0.59 for mRNA-seq; 0.43-0.89 for total RNA-seq).
  • Identified samples with discrepancies between conventional QC and coverage profiles.
  • High DS or wCV indicated greater variability in RNA quality, showing the effectiveness of the newly developed metrics.

Abstract

Abstract Background: RNA degradation profoundly impacts transcript quantification and downstream biological interpretation. Existing RNA quality assessment methods are largely limited to poly(A)-selected mRNA-seq and do not generalize to total RNA-seq, resulting in inconsistent quality evaluations across sequencing protocols. We hypothesize that base-resolution RNA-seq coverage profiles capture protocol-specific quality signatures. By modeling unexpected variation in these coverage patterns, RNA-seq quality can be accurately assessed for both mRNA-seq and total RNA-seq (including frozen and FFPE samples) within a common analytical framework tailored to each protocol. Methods: For both mRNA-seq and total RNA-seq, we quantify abnormal variations in per-base coverage by explicitly modeling degradation-related and other low-quality patterns. For mRNA-seq, specifically, we developed the Degradation Score (DS), which estimates the positional decay in read coverage along transcripts. For total RNA-seq, we introduced the window Coefficient of Variation (wCV), a variant of CV metric that captures coverage nonuniformity, reflecting the tendency of degraded samples to show elevated variability across gene bodies. We applied these metrics to over 2,600 RNA-seq profiles spanning multiple sequencing strategies and cohorts, including TCGA (mRNA-seq), CALGB (fresh frozen total RNA-seq), and ALCHEMIST (FFPE total RNA-seq). Results: Across datasets, our coverage-based metrics showed stronger correlations with conventional QC measures (|r|=0.52-0.59 in mRNA-seq, 0.43-0.89 in total RNA-seq; p0.001) than the correlations among themselves (|r|=0.24-0.44 in mRNA-seq, 0.44-0.88 in total RNA-seq; p0.001). We also identified a set of samples in which conventional QC flagged high degradation but coverage profiles appeared intact, and vice versa, highlighting protocol-dependent discrepancies. Manual inspection confirmed markedly greater aberrant variability in samples with high DS (mRNA-seq) or high wCV (total RNA-seq). Using standardized within class sum of squares across RNA quality strata, we found that samples classified as high-quality by our metrics consistently preserved known subtype structure across normalization methods. Conclusions: These protocol-specific, coverage-based measures provide a coherent and reproducible framework for evaluating RNA integrity across sequencing strategies and experimental conditions. Incorporating degradation-aware QC into RNA-seq pipelines improves interpretability, comparability, and biological fidelity of transcriptomic analyses in large cancer genomics studies. Citation Format: Miyeon Yeon, Wonyoung Choi, Jin Young Lee, David Neil Hayes, Hyo Young Choi. Protocol-specific and coverage-based RNA-seq metrics characterize RNA integrity signatures across cohorts abstract. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 4180.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yeon et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d1fd73a79560c99a0a376ahttps://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2026-4180
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper