Splicing neoepitope prediction is sensitive to methodological differences

Motivation Cancer-specific neoepitopes may arise from abnormal splicing in the transcriptomic landscape (alternative splicing neoepitopes, ASNs), leading to divergent proteins with high potential immunogenicity. Predicting candidate ASNs requires a series of algorithmic and parameter choices, but no previous study has investigated the consistency and interpretability of these choices. Results We apply two ASN prediction methods with 35 matched parameter sets to generate candidate ASNs for five breast and ovarian cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find that: 1) junction 9-mer peptides generated by two similarly designed pipelines differed by, on average, 68.9% and 76.6% in the BRCA and OV cohorts, respectively, and putatively cancer-specific junction 9-mers from the two pipelines diverged further, by an average of 81.5 % in OV and 84.6 % in BRCA; 2) the most lenient filters in the BRCA cohort show the highest divergence, at 97 %; 3) the rate of mass spectrometry validation of ASNs’ protein presence in cells is dominated by the size of the input space; and 4) putatively cancer-specific ASNs found by the intersection of both pipelines can be validated when accounting for false discovery with an average of 1.74 and 284.4 candidates in the BRCA and OV cohorts, respectively. Taken together, these results highlight that ASN identification is fragile and difficult to reproduce across analysis platforms, with limited cross-pipeline overlap and strong dependence on parameter choices.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
Published
2025-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-c-000794880
Primary Topic
RNA Research and Splicing
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Splicing neoepitope prediction is sensitive to methodological differences

Laurie Prélot, Julianne K. David, André Kahles, Reid F. Thompson et al.
Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
RNA Research and Splicing
article

Splicing neoepitope prediction is sensitive to methodological differences

Laurie Prélot, Julianne K. David, André Kahles, Reid F. Thompson, Andy Lin, Mariia Yurchikova, Gunnar Rätsch
article en

Abstract

Motivation Cancer-specific neoepitopes may arise from abnormal splicing in the transcriptomic landscape (alternative splicing neoepitopes, ASNs), leading to divergent proteins with high potential immunogenicity. Predicting candidate ASNs requires a series of algorithmic and parameter choices, but no previous study has investigated the consistency and interpretability of these choices. Results We apply two ASN prediction methods with 35 matched parameter sets to generate candidate ASNs for five breast and ovarian cancer samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find that: 1) junction 9-mer peptides generated by two similarly designed pipelines differed by, on average, 68.9% and 76.6% in the BRCA and OV cohorts, respectively, and putatively cancer-specific junction 9-mers from the two pipelines diverged further, by an average of 81.5 % in OV and 84.6 % in BRCA; 2) the most lenient filters in the BRCA cohort show the highest divergence, at 97 %; 3) the rate of mass spectrometry validation of ASNs’ protein presence in cells is dominated by the size of the input space; and 4) putatively cancer-specific ASNs found by the intersection of both pipelines can be validated when accounting for false discovery with an average of 1.74 and 284.4 candidates in the BRCA and OV cohorts, respectively. Taken together, these results highlight that ASN identification is fragile and difficult to reproduce across analysis platforms, with limited cross-pipeline overlap and strong dependence on parameter choices.

Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 34%
RNA Research and Splicing
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.