ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Challenges in identifying mRNA transcript starts and ends from long-read sequencing data.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Long-read sequencing (LRS) technologies have the potential to revolutionize scientific discoveries in RNA biology, especially by enabling the comprehensive identification and quantification of full length mRNA isoforms. However, inherently high error rates make the analysis of long-read sequencing data challenging. While these error rates have been characterized for sequence and splice site identification, it is still unclear how accurately LRS reads represent transcript start and end sites. Here, we systematically assess the variability and accuracy of mRNA terminal ends identified by LRS reads across multiple sequencing platforms. We find substantial inconsistencies in both the start and end coordinates of LRS reads spanning a gene, such that LRS reads often fail to accurately recapitulate annotated or empirically derived terminal ends of mRNA molecules. To address this challenge, we introduce an approach to condition reads based on empirically derived terminal ends and identified a subset of reads that are more likely to represent full-length transcripts. Our approach can improve transcriptome analyses by enhancing the fidelity of transcript terminal end identification, but may result in lower power to quantify genes or discover novel isoforms. Thus, it is necessary to be cautious when selecting sequencing approaches and/or interpreting data from long-read RNA sequencing.
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.