Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226924›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods.

Carrie Wright, Anandita Rajpurohit, Emily E Burke, Courtney Williams, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Martha Kimos, Nicholas J Brandon, Alan J Cross, Andrew E Jaffe, Daniel R Weinberger and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Micro RNA Sequencing in Circulating Tumor Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluating Genetic Regulators of MicroRNAs Using Machine Learning Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Beyond the Bubble: A Debate on microRNA Sorting Into Extracellular Vesicles.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Single Cell Micro RNA Sequencing Library Preparation.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

11 authors.

Carrie WrightLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Anandita RajpurohitLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Emily E BurkeLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Courtney WilliamsLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Leonardo Collado-TorresLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Martha KimosLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Nicholas J BrandonAstraZeneca Neuroscience, Innovative Medicines and Early Development Biotech Unit, Cambridge, MA, 01239, USA.
Alan J CrossAstraZeneca Neuroscience, Innovative Medicines and Early Development Biotech Unit, Cambridge, MA, 01239, USA.
Andrew E JaffeLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Daniel R WeinbergerLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. drweinberger@libd.org.
Joo Heon ShinLieber Institute for Brain Development, Johns Hopkins Medical Campus, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. jooheon.shin@libd.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRNA sequencing offers advantages over other quantification methods for microRNA (miRNA), yet numerous biases make reliable quantification challenging. Previous evaluations of these biases have focused on adapter ligation bias with limited evaluation of reverse transcription bias or amplification bias. Furthermore, evaluations of the quantification of isomiRs (miRNA isoforms) or the influence of starting amount on performance have been very limited. No study had yet evaluated the quantification of isomiRs of altered length or compared the consistency of results derived from multiple moderate starting inputs. We therefore evaluated quantifications of miRNA and isomiRs using four library preparation kits, with various starting amounts, as well as quantifications following removal of duplicate reads using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to mitigate reverse transcription and amplification biases.

resultsAll methods resulted in false isomiR detection; however, the adapter-free method tested was especially prone to false isomiR detection. We demonstrate that using UMIs improves accuracy and we provide a guide for input amounts to improve consistency.

conclusionsOur data show differences and limitations of current methods, thus raising concerns about the validity of quantification of miRNA and isomiRs across studies. We advocate for the use of UMIs to improve accuracy and reliability of miRNA quantifications.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiasHumansMiceRatsReproducibility of ResultsRNA IsoformsRNA, ViralSequence Analysis, RNARNA IsoformsRNA, ViralisomiRsLibrary preparationmicroRNASmall RNA sequencingUnique molecular identifiers

Identifiers

PMID31226924
PMCPMC6588940

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.