RNA seq (I) Edouard Severing A typical heat stress experiment (climate change) Economically important frog Heat stress Control ( convection) 85 minutes 5 days How does the frog adapt and survive? Coping with heat stress The frog likely has to change several processes in order to cope with the heat stress. Adaptation of metabolic pathways. Prevent water loss through skin Changing the concentration of several enzymes, other proteins and molecules. We want to determine these molecule concentration changes Starting with proteins. Changes at the molecular level We could measure protein concentration directly Not often done on a large scale We could measure changes in the expression of the genes that encode these proteins. Gene expression can be approximated by measuring the amount of mRNA molecules that are produced by the gene. Gene count and complexity 20.000 genes 25.000 genes From genes to proteins (I) Initial assumption N Protein coding genes N N mRNA Proteins Molecules Assumption is based on studies that were performed on bacterial systems From genes to proteins (II) Current view N Protein coding genes XN ?N mRNA Proteins Molecules What happens here ? Splicing Pre-mRNA 5’- 5’- -3’ Exon Exon Intron Intron Gene Exon Splicing mRNA 5’- Exon Exon Exon -3’ -3’ Alternative splicing Pre-mRNA 5’- -3’ 5’- -3’ 5’- -3’ Splicing 5’- Splicing -3’ 5’- -3’ Gene count and complexity 90% of genes have AS 60% of genes have AS The average number of transcripts produced by human genes is also higher than the average number of transcripts produced by plant genes An extreme case Dscam gene produces over 38,000 different transcripts Major alternative splicing event types In humans exon skipping is most frequent AS event type In plants intron retention are the most common AS event type Humans Plants Exon skipping Intron retention RNA editing Primary transcript 5’- A C U A C G A U - 3’ (Predicted sequence) RNA-Editing After editing (Observed sequence) 5’- A C U A U G A U - 3’ Difficulty: Distinguish genuine RNA-editing from sequencing errors Not everything is translated A large fraction (>30%) of transcripts of protein coding genes are degraded by the nonsensemediated decay (NMD) pathway. The position of the stop codon is used to predict whether a transcript is likely to be degraded by the NMD pathway Detecting putative NMD candidates Pre-mRNA 5’- mRNA -3’ 5’- -3’ Exon/Exon junctions M Open reading frame Stop 5’- -3’ d > 50-55nt Remember The number of unique mRNA molecules is much larger than the number of genes. A large fraction of the mRNA molecules is degraded by the NMD pathway. NMD provides a means to regulate gene-expression at the post-transcriptional level Process the frogs into reads for analysis Sequencing Grind N2 Prepare for sequencing >s1 ATCGTAGGGTA >s2 ATGGCCTAGGT Bioinformatics Basic transcriptome analysis steps Many research questions require the following steps: Reconstruction of the transcriptome • We usually only have fragments Quantification of the transcriptome Differential expression analysis Other fun stuff. de novo transcriptome reconstruction (I) de novo transcriptome reconstruction (II) Genome-guided transcriptome reconstruction Genome 5’- -3’ mRNA Genome-guided transcriptome reconstruction Genome-guided transcriptome reconstruction Remember de novo transcriptome assembly When no reference genome is available Finding features which are not on the reference genome (tDNA insertion) Programs: Trinity, Trans-ABySS, Velvet Oases Genome-guided transcriptome reconstruction Reference genome is available with or without annotation Mapping programs: TopHat, GSNAP Transcriptome reconstruction: Scripture, Cufflinks RNA seq (II) Quantification Edouard Severing A typical heat stress experiment Heat stress Control (convection) Raw counts Counting number of reads/fragments falling with exonic regions of a gene. Example: HTseq-count Exon 1 Exon 2 Exon 3 Exon 4 The same fragment count yet different expression levels Exon 1 library Exon 1 Library size matters library The same fragment count yet different expression levels. Exon 1 Exon 2 Exon 3 Exon 1 Transcript/gene length matters Exon 4 Normalizing/correcting for feature length and library size Reads mapped to region RPKM ≈ 1.7 300 nt Feature length 10,000,000 All mapped reads RPKM 109 x Number of reads mapped to a region Total reads x region length Normalizing/correcting for feature length FPKM is analogous to RPKM RPKM = 1 RPKM = 2 FPKM = 1 Different picture emerges from raw counts and RPKM/FPKM values Counting method issues What to do with reads that map to multiple isoforms (alternative splicing) or genes Pure Random assignment? Gene 1 Gene 2 Isoform 1 Isoform 1 No, expression can differ Count multiple time? No, it has been derived from a single transcript Isoform 2 Count issues: Back to the gene level (I) Count issues: Back to the gene level (II) Statistical methods: Expression levels of transcripts Fishing in the dark lake experiment Question: What fraction (t) of the fish in the lake is green? Method: We catch a number of fish and determine what fraction is green. Caution: Fish have to be immediately thrown back in the water. Fishing in the dark lake results (I) Sane people would do: Sample(X) Fraction of fish that is green t = 1/3 Fishing in the dark lake results Maximum likelihood estimate of t Maximum likelihood estimate of t Sample(X) sample X given a certain t: 𝑃(𝑋) = P(t)) The probability of observing our 3! ∙ 𝑡 ∙ (1 − 𝑡)2 2! ∙ 1! Find a t that maximizes the probability of our observation t Fishing in a complex dark lake. Transcript quantification using RNAseq is like fishing in a dark lake with fragmented fish. We are also forced to determine the possible origin(s) of the fish fragments Only lost an eye and a vin but not its tail Estimating relative transcript abundances Target α1 Transcript 1 α2 Transcript 2 Fragmentation Sequencing Observation >s1 ATCGTAGGGTA >s2 Read mapping ATGGCCTAGGT Which values of the α1 and α2 gives the highest probability of observing these reads. (α1 + α2 = 1 ) Maximum likelihood alignments The likelihood of our observation (ʎ) corresponds to the product of observing each of the individual mapped reads (rj ) in our set (R) 𝑅 𝛌= 𝑃(𝑟𝑗 ) 𝑗=1 R Probability of observing a read Probability of observing a read rj is the sum of the individual probabilities that a read originates from each transcript (t) in our transcript set (T). 𝑇 𝑃(𝑟𝑗 ) = 𝐾 𝑗𝑡 𝑡=1 Read j 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑇 ∙ 𝑃𝑗𝑡 (𝑞) 𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 𝑙𝑖 Probability that rj originated from transcript t Component 1: Compatibility 𝑇 𝑃(𝑟𝑗 ) = 𝐾 𝑗𝑡 𝑡=1 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑇 ∙ 𝑃𝑗𝑡 (𝑞) 𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 𝑙𝑖 Does read j map to transcript t t=1 t=2 t=3 Kj1 = 1 Kj2 = 1 Kj3 = 0 Component 2: Sequencing a read from a specific transcript 𝑇 𝑃(𝑟𝑗 ) = 𝐾 𝑗𝑡 𝑡=1 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑇 ∙ 𝑃𝑗𝑡 (𝑞) 𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 𝑙𝑖 Probability of “sequencing” a read from transcript t 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 Product of the relative expression level and length of transcript t Component 2: Sequencing a read from a specific transcript Why 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 and not just 𝛼𝑡 ? Longer transcripts produce more fragments than shorter transcripts at equal expression levels. α1 Fragmentation α2 α1 = α2 Fragments Component l1 = 200; α1 = 0.3 l2 = 150; α2 = 0.2 l3 = 50; α3 = 0.5 𝛼1 𝑙1 0.3 ∙ 200 = ≈ 0.52 𝑇 0.3 ∙ 200 + 0.2 ∙ 150 + 0.5 ∙ 50 𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 𝑙𝑖 Adjust for length normalize Component 3: 𝑇 𝑃(𝑟𝑗 ) = 𝐾 𝑗𝑡 𝑡=1 𝛼𝑡 𝑙𝑡 ∙ 𝑇 ∙ 𝑃𝑗𝑡 (𝑞) 𝑖=1 𝛼𝑖 𝑙𝑖 Probability of originating from position q on transcript t In the case of no bias: 1 𝑃𝑗𝑡 (𝑞) = 𝑙𝑡 Components: Fragment comes from a certain position of the transcript (I) Occurence 300nt 200nt More likely Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency Components: Fragment comes from a certain position of the transcript (II) Not all regions are equally covered. Search for abundances that best explain the observed fragments The method used to find the optimum differs per program. Trapnell et al. 2010 The statistical methods can also provide an indication of the uncertainty in the expression estimates One of the sources of that uncertainty are reads that do not map uniquely. Occurrence Uncertainty in expression estimate FPKM Remember The statistical methods calculate the expression level of each transcript The gene expression can then be obtained by simply summing expression levels of its isoforms Gene RPKM = 11 Isoform 1 RPKM = 6 Isoform 2 RPKM = 5 Programs employing statistical models Cufflinks Genome annotation based • FPKM values Numerical method for finding the maximum likelihood optimum RSEM de novo transcriptome • Counts and RPKM values Expectation maximization for finding the optimum BitSeq de novo transcriptome • Counts and RPKM values Markov chain Monte Carlo for sampling from the posterior distribution. RNA seq (III) Differential expression Edouard severing A typical heat stress experiment Heat stress (convection) Control Single measurement Many measurements Is this gene really important ? HSP38 Expression level Expression level Sources of variation Biological Technical Sequencing Treatment Grind N2 Convection Freezer RNA extraction Procedure Bioinformatics Determining expression variation Accurately determining the variation requires many biological samples (replicates). Unfortunately in most case we only have two or three replicates. Other methods are needed to approximate/model the variation. Determining within condition fragment count variation modeling (DESeq/cuffdiff) Main assumption: Variance depends on the mean. Objective: Find a function that best describes the relationship between the mean and variance. Trapnell et al. 2012 Building the within condition fragment count distribution (DEseq) At this stage DESeq and Cuffdiff determined for each transcript/gene 1. The within condition fragment count mean 2. The within condition fragment count variance With these parameters a fragment count probability distribution can be determined. DESeq uses a negative binomial (NB) distribution. NB: Variance is larger than the mean Building the within condition fragment count distribution (Cuffdiff) In addition to NB distribution of DESeq Cuffdiff also takes the uncertainty in transcripts fragment assignment into account. The resulting count distribution is called a beta negative binomial (BNB) distribution This count distribution is in the end transformed to a distribution of FPKM values. Differential gene expression Now that the count or FPKM distributions are known we can start testing for significant differences in expression levels. There are several ways in which one can test whether the gene/transcript levels in two conditions are significantly different. DESeq: uses an exact test which is analogous to the Fisher exact test. (The hyper-geometrical is replaced by the NB distribution) Cuffdiff: uses a t-test (We will look at that in the next slide) Testing for differential expression (Cuffdiff) log FC Expression Heat control log FC distribution Many measurements leads to many fold changes Cuffdiff p-value According to authors of cufflinks State that the quantity T is approximately Normally distributed log FC distribution -|T| 𝐸[log 𝐹𝐶 ] 𝑇= 𝑉𝑎𝑟[log 𝐹𝐶 ] |T| Unadjusted p-value of cufflinks indicates what the probability of observing a T which is more extreme the current T (Red areas) Samtools view SRR019209.14131084 16 Chr1 3695 50 36M * 0 0 AGCGAGAGAGATCGACGGCGAAGCTCTTTACCCGCT%%"&'"(&&#'$&$)+$#,%83%0&1250'III+$' MD:Z:34G0A0 YT:Z:UU XS:A:+ NH:i:1 Sw accepted_hits.bam /mnt/geninf15/work/course_2013/day2/mapped_reads AS:i:-4 XN:i:0 XM:i:2 XO:i:0 XG:i:0 NM:i:2