You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
An interesting case was raised up:
Let's imagine a miRNA that is 19nt long and has 3 mismatches at its 3'end. How do we classify it?
=> Should it be iso_add3p:3?
or should it be iso_add3p:2,iso_snv_central_supp?
Each categorization could be backed. But some filtering criteria could solve the problem beforehand:
what sizes of isomiRs should be allowed? A lot of us tend to allow 17-18nt to 25-26nt as a size range. But I remember Bastian F. pointing out that no isomiRs, if not-degraded, should be below 20nt. Bastian, do you have a citation for this statement?
How many non-templated 3'-end additions seem biologically acceptable? I personally put a cap at 3nt. What do other people do?
If we say that a miRNA shouldn't be shorter than 20nt and shouldn't have more than 3 non-templated 3'-end nt additions then we solve the original question. But is that biologically sound?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
An interesting case was raised up:
Let's imagine a miRNA that is 19nt long and has 3 mismatches at its 3'end. How do we classify it?
=> Should it be iso_add3p:3?
or should it be iso_add3p:2,iso_snv_central_supp?
Each categorization could be backed. But some filtering criteria could solve the problem beforehand:
If we say that a miRNA shouldn't be shorter than 20nt and shouldn't have more than 3 non-templated 3'-end nt additions then we solve the original question. But is that biologically sound?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: