ArticleGenomics2019
Exploring the effect of library preparation on RNA sequencing experiments.
Article in Genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of ensilication technology for ambient DNA preservation.NAR molecular medicine · 2026Article
- An analysis of RNA quality metrics in human brain tissue.Journal of neuropathology and experimental neurology · 2025Article
- Article
- CODA: a combo-Seq data analysis workflow.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Protocol variations in run-on transcription dataset preparation produce detectable signatures in sequencing libraries.BMC genomics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become the widely preferred choice for surveying the genome-wide transcriptome complexity in many organisms. However, the broad adaptation of this methodology into the clinic still needs further evaluation of potential effect of sample preparation factors on its analytical reliability using patient samples. In this study, we examined the impact of three major sample preparation factors (i.e., cDNA library storage time, the quantity of input RNA, and cryopreservation of cell samples) on sequence biases, gene expression profiles, and enriched biological functions using RNAs isolated from primary B cell and CD4+ cell blood samples of healthy subjects. Our comprehensive comparison results suggested that different cDNA library storage time, quantity of input RNA, and cryopreservation of cell samples did not significantly alter gene transcriptional expression profiles generated by RNA-seq experiments. These findings shed new lights on the potential applications of RNA-seq technique to patient samples in a regular clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.