Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32536962›Full record

ArticlePlant methods2020

Analysis and comprehensive comparison of PacBio and nanopore-based RNA sequencing of the

Jiawen Cui, Nan Shen, Zhaogeng Lu, Guolu Xu, Yuyao Wang, Biao Jin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
–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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. DNA Sequencing and the Third-Generation Sequencing Revolution.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Jiawen CuiCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009 China.
Nan ShenCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009 China.
Zhaogeng LuCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009 China.
Guolu XuBiomarker Technologies Corporation, Beijing, 101300 China.
Yuyao WangBiomarker Technologies Corporation, Beijing, 101300 China.
Biao JinCollege of Horticulture and Plant Protection, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009 China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7330-334X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe number of studies using third-generation sequencing utilising Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) is rapidly increasing in many different research areas. Among them, plant full-length single-molecule transcriptome studies have mostly used PacBio sequencing, whereas ONT is rarely used. Therefore, in this study, we examined ONT RNA sequencing methods in plants. We performed a detailed evaluation of reads from PacBio, Nanopore direct cDNA (ONT Dc), and Nanopore PCR cDNA (ONT Pc) sequencing including characteristics of raw data and identification of transcripts. In addition, matched Illumina data were generated for comparison.

resultsONT Pc showed overall better raw data quality, whereas PacBio generated longer read lengths. In the transcriptome analysis, PacBio and ONT Pc performed similarly in transcript identification, simple sequence repeat analysis, and long non-coding RNA prediction. PacBio was superior in identifying alternative splicing events, whereas ONT Pc could estimate transcript expression levels.

conclusionsThis paper made a comprehensive comparison of PacBio and nanopore-based RNA sequencing of the

Indexed as

NanoporePacBioPlant transcriptomeRNA-SeqSingle-molecule sequencingThird-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32536962
PMCPMC7291481

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.