{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02513227513227513, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005291005291005291, 'mean_word_length': 5.330543933054393, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative study of bioinformatic tools for the identification of chimeric RNAs from RNA Sequencing

ABSTRACT Chimeric RNAs are gaining more and more attention as they have broad implications in both cancer and normal physiology. To date, over 40 chimeric RNA prediction methods have been developed to facilitate their identification from RNA sequencing data. However, a limited number of studies have been conducted to compare the performance of these tools; additionally, previous studies have become outdated as more software tools have been developed within the last three years. In this study, we benchmarked 16 chimeric RNA prediction software, including seven top performers in previous benchmarking studies, and nine that were recently developed. We used two simulated and two real RNA-Seq datasets, compared the 16 tools for their sensitivity, positive prediction value (PPV), F-measure, and also documented the computational requirements (time and memory). We noticed that none of the tools are inclusive, and their performance varies depending on the dataset and objects. To increase the detection of true positive events, we also evaluated the pair-wise combination of these methods to suggest the best combination for sensitivity and F-measure. In addition, we compared the performance of the tools for the identification of three classes (read-through, inter-chromosomal and intra-others) of chimeric RNAs. Finally, we performed TOPSIS analyses and ranked the weighted performance of the 16 tools.