$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
To evaluate CADRES under realistic experimental conditions, we used an inducible APOBEC3B (A3B) system in 293T cells. A doxycycline‑responsive lentiviral construct expressing A3B-GFP was introduced into 293T cells, and stable integrants were selected with puromycin. Induction with doxycycline for 72 h produced robust A3B-GFP expression, confirmed by GFP fluorescence and increased A3B mRNA levels. Matched induced and non‑induced samples were then subjected to uniform DNA and RNA extraction, library preparation, and sequencing to ensure that observed RNA-DNA differences reflected true A3B‑dependent editing rather than technical noise. The complete raw dataset is available under SRA accession PRJNA1211186, with a chromosome‑22 segment (chr22:28,000–30,000 kb) subset provided in the CADRES GitHub repository (https://github.com/junsun-hash/CADRES/releases/tag/v1.0.0) for demonstration and testing purposes.
After execution, CADRES generates {prefix}_Result.txt with DVR coordinates, editing fractions, P-values, and FDR. Expected outputs show: (i) DVR counts consistent with biological editing activity; (ii) progressive reduction in the filtering funnel (Figure 2); (iii) consistent replicate-level editing fractions. Low DVR counts or flat funnels warrant review of alignment statistics and input data quality. The Post-analysis.R script produces six standard PNG outputs: Plot_Volcano_CU_AI.png (volcano plot of significant editing changes), Plot_Correlation_DMSO_DOX.png (inter-condition editing-fraction correlation), Plot_LocationDistribution_AllSig.png (genomic distribution of DVRs), Plot_Location_Comparison_CU_AI.png (positional comparison by substitution class), Plot_EditingShift_CU_AI.png (magnitude and direction of editing shifts), and Plot_TopGenes_CU_AI.png (genes with the highest DVR counts).
Figure 2 shows how CADRES progressively refines candidate RNA-DNA differences. Nearly one million initial Mutect2 calls were reduced by PASS filtering, restriction to single-nucleotide variants, homopolymer filtering, and PBLAT realignment. Each step removed substantial artifactual signal, particularly in repetitive or ambiguous genomic regions. Ultimately, 348 sites passed the rMATS‑DVR significance threshold (FDR < 0.05), representing a final set of high‑confidence differential editing events.
As shown in Figure 3, DVRs were dominated by deamination‑associated substitution classes. A>G and C>U variants represented the vast majority of calls, consistent with A>I and C>U editing. Of these, 110 A>G and 233 C>U sites were significantly altered between conditions, with C>U events comprising the largest DVR class. Most A>G DVRs were novel rather than annotated in SNP or RNA‑editing databases, and C>U DVRs showed a similarly high proportion of novel sites (207 of 233). Other substitution types yielded only isolated DVRs, consistent with their lower biological relevance in A3B‑driven systems.
Quality-control assessments confirmed robust editing quantification. Figure 4 (generated by the CADRES pipeline, Plot_Correlation_DMSO_DOX.png) shows class-specific comparisons of alternative-allele fractions between DMSO and doxycycline samples for A>I, C>U, and other substitution classes. This reflects expected A3B-induced editing: sites near the diagonal are constitutively edited, while off-diagonal sites represent condition-specific changes. The deviation from unity is consistent with extensive A3B activity rather than technical noise. In Figure 5 (Plot_Volcano_CU_AI.png), A>I sites exhibited larger positive editing shifts, whereas C>U sites formed a dense cluster of significant events with smaller net changes. Figure 6 (Plot_LocationDistribution_AllSig.png) shows that significant sites are localized primarily to 3′ UTRs, followed by introns and coding regions. Figure 7 (Plot_Location_Comparison_CU_AI.png) reveals clear positional divergence between mutation classes: C>U sites were enriched in 3′ UTRs and coding exons, whereas A>I sites were concentrated in introns. Figure 8 (Plot_TopGenes_CU_AI.png) lists genes with multiple DVRs, with NEAT1 and MGEA5 showing the highest counts; several others, including XBP1, GSR, and LOC101928978, also contained recurrent events. Many of these genes displayed increased edited-allele fractions following A3B induction.
Together, these results demonstrate that CADRES effectively distinguishes genuine A3B‑dependent RNA editing from genomic and technical sources of variation, recovers mutation‑class‑specific editing patterns, and produces a compact, high‑confidence set of condition‑dependent RNA editing events. This protocol uses an APOBEC3B overexpression system at supraphysiological editing levels (n = 3 biological replicates per condition). Performance may differ in endogenous editing contexts or across heterogeneous genomic backgrounds. Users applying CADRES to clinical samples should interpret DVR counts relative to their system and consider orthogonal validation for key sites.

Figure 1. Workflow and schematic of the CADRES pipeline. This figure illustrates the overall CADRES workflow, including software setup, input requirements, preprocessing steps, variant calling, filtering, and downstream differential RNA‑editing analysis. The pipeline begins with the installation of dependencies and creation of the CADRES environment, followed by alignment of RNA‑seq and DNA‑sequencing data to a reference genome to generate BAM files. External annotation resources such as REDIportal, RefGene, gnomAD, and dbSNP are incorporated. CADRES then performs calibration, variant calling, and multiple filtering steps to refine candidate RNA-DNA variants. Strand separation and allele‑depth acquisition are used to prepare inputs for rMATS‑based differential variant analysis, producing the summary and result files ({prefix}_Result_summary.txt and {prefix}_Result.txt). Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 2. Progressive refinement of RNA–DNA variants by CADRES. DVRs were identified from DOX‑treated versus DMSO‑treated 293T A3B‑GFP lentiviral inducible cells. This figure shows the sequential filtering steps used by CADRES to refine raw variant calls. Statistical threshold: FDR < 0.05 (Benjamini‑Hochberg). Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 3. Substitution-class distribution of detected variants and DVRs. Corresponds to CADRES output: {prefix}_Result_summary.txt. DVRs were obtained from DOX‑treated versus DMSO‑treated 293T A3B‑GFP lentiviral inducible cells. This figure displays the counts of each substitution type for all variants and for DVRs. DVRs defined at FDR < 0.05. Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 4. Correlation of editing levels between DOX‑ and DMSO‑treated 293T A3B‑GFP cells. Corresponds to CADRES output: Plot_Correlation_DMSO_DOX.png. This figure shows class-specific comparisons of editing levels between the two treatment conditions for A>I, C>U, and other substitution classes. Pearson correlation coefficients are shown in the individual panels. Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 5. Differential editing landscape between conditions. Corresponds to CADRES output: Plot_Volcano_CU_AI.png. This figure shows a volcano plot of effect size and statistical significance for all sites tested for differential RNA editing between DOX‑ and DMSO‑treated cells. Significance threshold: FDR < 0.05 (Benjamini‑Hochberg). Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 6. Genomic annotation of significant RNA editing sites. Corresponds to CADRES output: Plot_LocationDistribution_AllSig.png. This figure shows the distribution of DVRs across annotated genomic features. DVRs at FDR < 0.05. Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 7. Positional distribution of C>U and A>I DVRs. Corresponds to CADRES output: Plot_Location_Comparison_CU_AI.png. This figure displays the genomic location categories of DVRs separated by substitution type. DVRs at FDR < 0.05. Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.

Figure 8. Top genes containing multiple DVRs in DOX‑ versus DMSO‑treated samples. Corresponds to CADRES output: Plot_TopGenes_CU_AI.png. This figure displays the top 20 genes ranked by the number of DVRs. Color intensity represents mean delta fraction (Δ = DOX minus DMSO alternative‑allele frequency). Positive delta fraction values indicate higher editing levels in DOX‑treated samples compared to DMSO controls, consistent with A3B induction. All top DVR-containing genes (NEAT1, MGEA5, GSR, etc.) showed elevated editing upon A3B overexpression. DVRs at FDR < 0.05. Biological replicates: n = 3 per condition. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.