Additional file 1 of Lessons from discovery of true ADAR RNA editing sites in a human cell line

Additional file 1: TableS1. Description of the 130 RNA-seq samples. Table S2. Description of the drugs usedto treat cells in the RNA-seq analyses. TableS3. Fractions of candidate sites located in repeats/Alus. Table S4. The numbers of candidatesites predicted by different methods. TableS5. The number of candidate sites predicted in only one or at least twosamples with the maximum editing level >0.2. Table S6. The validation ratios of candidate sites detected in only1 or at least 2 samples. Table S7.The list of sites that were positive in the Sanger validation. Table S8. The list of sites that werenegative in the Sanger validation. TableS9. The validation ratios of candidate sites detected by one or moremethods. Table S10. The validationratios of candidate sites in exonic regions. Table S11. The validation ratios of unannotated candidate sites innon-exonic regions. Table S12. Theodds ratios of enrichment of the 3160 annotated editing candidate sites indifferent genomic features. Table S13.Genomic landscape of RNA editing candidate sites with the maximum editing level>0.2 and detected in at least 2 samples. Table S14. List of the 3160 annotated sites. Table S15. List of the 989 unannotated sites. Table S16. Sequence motifs around the sites positive or negative inthe Sanger validation and all sites predicted by the pipeline. Table S17. Overlap between the 237annotated editing sites predicted in the CCLE K562 RNA-seq samples with thesites predicted in our 130 K562 RNA-seq samples.