ArticleLife science alliance2023
Comparative analysis of bioinformatics tools to characterize SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNAs.
Article in Life science alliance, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How benchmarking of bioinformatics tools is essential for informed workflow selection: a case study on SARS-CoV-2 subgenomic RNA detection.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Improved sub-genomic RNA prediction with the ARTIC protocol.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), positive-sense genomic RNA and subgenomic RNAs (sgRNAs) are synthesized by a discontinuous process of transcription characterized by a template switch, regulated by transcription-regulating sequences (TRS). Although poorly known about makeup and dynamics of sgRNAs population and function of its constituents, next-generation sequencing approaches with the help of bioinformatics tools have made a significant contribution to expand the knowledge of sgRNAs in SARS-CoV-2. For this scope to date, Periscope, LeTRS, sgDI-tector, and CORONATATOR have been developed. However, limited number of studies are available to compare the performance of such tools. To this purpose, we compared Periscope, LeTRS, and sgDI-tector in the identification of canonical (c-) and noncanonical (nc-) sgRNA species in the data obtained with the Illumina ARTIC sequencing protocol applied to SARS-CoV-2-infected Caco-2 cells, sampled at different time points. The three software showed a high concordance rate in the identification and in the quantification of c-sgRNA, whereas more differences were observed in nc-sgRNA. Overall, LeTRS and sgDI-tector result to be adequate alternatives to Periscope to analyze Fastq data from sequencing platforms other than Nanopore.
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.