ArticleScientific reports2022
Systematic comparative analysis of strand-specific RNA-seq library preparation methods for low input samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- RNA Sequencing Technologies in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Comparative Technical Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Optimized MT-Capture targeted enrichment sequencing for the complete genome of norovirus in stool and sewage samples.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Hair follicle gene expression profiling in the SubPopulations and InteRmediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS).BMC medical genomics · 2025Article
- Wide-spectrum profiling of plasma cell-free RNA and the potential for health-monitoring.RNA biology · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of library preparation approaches for FFPE gene expression profiling and related recommendations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of Curcumin on Hepatic mRNA and lncRNA Co-Expression in Heat-Stressed Laying Hens.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Quantitative Analysis of Genomic DNA Degradation ofGels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Future Perspectives for the Identification and Sequencing of Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide-Capped RNAs.Accounts of chemical research · 2023Article
- Non-Coding RNAs in Tuberculosis Epidemiology: Platforms and Approaches for Investigating the Genome's Dark Matter.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the recent precipitous decline in the cost of genome sequencing, library preparation for RNA-seq is still laborious and expensive for applications such as high throughput screening. Limited availability of RNA generated by some experimental workflows poses an additional challenge and increases the cost of RNA library preparation. In a search for low cost, automation-compatible RNA library preparation kits that maintain strand specificity and are amenable to low input RNA quantities, we systematically tested two recent commercial technologies-Swift RNA and Swift Rapid RNA, presently offered by Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT) -alongside the Illumina TruSeq stranded mRNA, the de facto standard workflow for bulk transcriptomics. We used the Universal Human Reference RNA (UHRR) (composed of equal quantities of total RNA from 10 human cancer cell lines) to benchmark gene expression in these kits, at input quantities ranging between 10 to 500 ng. We found normalized read counts between all treatment groups to be in high agreement. Compared to the Illumina TruSeq stranded mRNA kit, both Swift RNA library kits offer shorter workflow times enabled by their patented Adaptase technology. We also found the Swift RNA kit to produce the fewest number of differentially expressed genes and pathways directly attributable to input mRNA amount.
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.