Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28818039›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2017

The impact of RNA sequence library construction protocols on transcriptomic profiling of leukemia.

Ashwini Kumar, Matti Kankainen, Alun Parsons, Olli Kallioniemi, Pirkko Mattila, Caroline A Heckman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. iScience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Comparison of RNA-Sequencing Methods for Degraded RNA.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ashwini KumarInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Matti KankainenInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Alun ParsonsInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Olli KallioniemiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Pirkko MattilaInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland.
Caroline A HeckmanInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), Helsinki Institute of Life Science, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 20, Tukholmankatu 8, FI-00014, Helsinki, Finland. caroline.heckman@helsinki.fi.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become an indispensable tool to identify disease associated transcriptional profiles and determine the molecular underpinnings of diseases. However, the broad adaptation of the methodology into the clinic is still hampered by inconsistent results from different RNA-seq protocols and involves further evaluation of its analytical reliability using patient samples. Here, we applied two commonly used RNA-seq library preparation protocols to samples from acute leukemia patients to understand how poly-A-tailed mRNA selection (PA) and ribo-depletion (RD) based RNA-seq library preparation protocols affect gene fusion detection, variant calling, and gene expression profiling.

resultsOverall, the protocols produced similar results with consistent outcomes. Nevertheless, the PA protocol was more efficient in quantifying expression of leukemia marker genes and showed better performance in the expression-based classification of leukemia. Independent qRT-PCR experiments verified that the PA protocol better represented total RNA compared to the RD protocol. In contrast, the RD protocol detected a higher number of non-coding RNA features and had better alignment efficiency. The RD protocol also recovered more known fusion-gene events, although variability was seen in fusion gene predictions.

conclusionThe overall findings provide a framework for the use of RNA-seq in a precision medicine setting with limited number of samples and suggest that selection of the library preparation protocol should be based on the objectives of the analysis.

Indexed as

Gene LibrarySequence Analysis, RNAGene Expression ProfilingHumansLeukemiaHematological malignanciesLibrary preparationPoly-A selectionRibo-depletionRNA-sequencing

Identifiers

PMID28818039
PMCPMC5561555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.