$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
RNA editing constitutes a dynamic layer of post‑transcriptional regulation that enables site‑specific nucleotide substitutions within RNA transcripts without altering the underlying DNA sequence. In metazoans, adenosine‑to‑inosine (A>I) deamination mediated by ADAR enzymes is the predominant form and contributes to transcript diversification, mRNA stability, innate immune modulation, and neuronal function1,2. Cytidine‑to‑uridine (C>U) (hereafter "C>U" in biological context; "C>T" in sequencing context) deamination, catalyzed by members of the APOBEC family, operates alongside these pathways and is implicated in lipid metabolism, viral restriction, mutagenesis, and emerging regulatory roles in immune and cancer biology3,4,5,6,7. Recent work has demonstrated that several APOBEC enzymes, including APOBEC1, APOBEC3A, and APOBEC3B (A3B), catalyze RNA editing across physiological and pathological contexts3,4,7,8,9,10. APOBEC3 enzymes also induce DNA editing, producing overlapping mutational signatures that complicate discrimination between RNA editing and genomic variation8,10,11,12.
Next‑generation sequencing has enabled transcriptome‑wide identification of potential RNA editing sites, yet distinguishing true edits from genomic SNVs or technical noise remains difficult. A>I and C>U events appear as A>G and C>T substitutions in cDNA libraries and can be confounded by mispriming, polymerase errors, mapping artifacts, and context‑specific expression changes. Public resources such as REDIportal13, catalog millions of A>I sites, whereas C>U annotations remain sparse, reflecting both biological and analytical constraints. Reliable identification of C>U editing—especially changes across conditions—therefore remains an unmet analytical need.
The overarching goal of the method presented here, the Calibrated Differential RNA Editing Scanner (CADRES), is the precise identification of Differential Variants on RNA (DVRs): editing sites that undergo statistically significant changes in editing depth between two or more defined conditions14. In developing this protocol, we sought to address two persistent obstacles. First, bona fide RNA edits must be distinguished from DNA‑encoded variants. Second, editing differences must be quantified in a statistically robust manner across biologically replicated RNA‑seq datasets. The central innovation of CADRES lies in its integration of joint DNA/RNA variant calling with a calibrated treatment of RNA variants during base‑quality score recalibration (BQSR). This “boost recalibration” strategy preserves newly discovered RNA editing sites during BQSR, thereby preventing systematic quality downgrading that commonly erodes sensitivity for low‑frequency edits15,16,17. This approach reduces false negatives and improves specificity compared with pipelines that rely solely on incomplete RNA editing databases.
CADRES sits within a landscape of methods that each address different aspects of RNA editing analysis. SNPiR18 and RVboost19 filter artifacts from RNA‑only variant sets; VaDiR20 incorporates DNA–RNA comparisons but does not model replicate structure; rMATS‑DVR21 performs GLMM‑based differential testing but relies exclusively on RNA‑seq; and JACUSA/JACUSA222,23 support replicate‑aware detection but do not incorporate joint DNA–RNA interrogation or recalibration strategies. CADRES unifies replicate‑aware statistical modeling, joint DNA/RNA variant calling, and recalibration enriched for de novo editing sites, providing a single workflow optimized for detecting condition‑dependent RNA editing—including C>U events linked to APOBEC activity10,11,12.
In this context, users may consider CADRES appropriate when their experimental system fulfills the following criteria. First, paired RNA‑seq and whole‑genome or whole‑exome sequencing from the same samples is available, enabling rigorous partitioning of RNA‑derived events from DNA‑encoded variants. Second, the biological question concerns changes in RNA editing across conditions—such as enzyme induction, environmental stress, developmental stages, or disease states—where statistical modeling of allele‑specific depth across replicates is essential. Third, the investigator seeks enhanced specificity in C>U editing detection, where distinguishing RNA events from APOBEC‑driven DNA mutagenesis is indispensable. CADRES is particularly valuable in systems where APOBEC activity induces both RNA and DNA edits, as demonstrated in inducible A3B models10,11,12 and where conventional RNA‑only methods exhibit inflated false‑positive rates due to confounding SNVs or repetitive‑sequence artifacts.
CADRES offers several practical advantages. Its joint DNA/RNA variant calling reduces SNV‑driven false positives. Boost recalibration preserves true editing signals, including novel events absent from reference databases. The rMATS‑derived GLMM provides a statistically principled framework for differential editing analysis across replicates. Together, these features yield a calibrated, high‑precision platform for studying dynamic RNA editing across experimental and disease settings. In our previous study14, CADRES was rigorously benchmarked against established RNA editing detection methods using both in silico simulated datasets and real-world inducible A3B cell models. In the in silico evaluation, CADRES consistently achieved precision scores of 0.85–0.95 and accuracy scores of 0.92–0.98 across replicate numbers. The overall CADRES workflow is illustrated in Figure 1.