ArticleRNA biology2024
Unraveling C-to-U RNA editing events from direct RNA sequencing.
Article in RNA biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Two codes of RNA editing by deamination in human diseases.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Ab initio detection of multiple epitranscriptomic modifications from Oxford nanopore technology direct RNA sequencing data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Advances in Detecting RNA Modifications Using Direct RNA Nanopore Sequencing.Advanced genetics (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Review
- A-to-I RNA edited POLA2 attains carcinogenesis in prostatic cancer by impeding immune infiltration and upregulating BTBD7.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- REDIportal: toward an integrated view of the A-to-I editing.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Detection of ribonucleotides embedded in DNA by Nanopore sequencing.Communications biology · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In mammals, RNA editing events involve the conversion of adenosine (A) in inosine (I) by ADAR enzymes or the hydrolytic deamination of cytosine (C) in uracil (U) by the APOBEC family of enzymes, mostly APOBEC1. RNA editing has a plethora of biological functions, and its deregulation has been associated with various human disorders. While the large-scale detection of A-to-I is quite straightforward using the Illumina RNAseq technology, the identification of C-to-U events is a non-trivial task. This difficulty arises from the rarity of such events in eukaryotic genomes and the challenge of distinguishing them from background noise. Direct RNA sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) permits the direct detection of Us on sequenced RNA reads. Surprisingly, using ONT reads from wild-type (WT) and APOBEC1-knock-out (KO) murine cell lines as well as in vitro synthesized RNA without any modification, we identified a systematic error affecting the accuracy of the Cs call, thereby leading to incorrect identifications of C-to-U events. To overcome this issue in direct RNA reads, here we introduce a novel machine learning strategy based on the isolation Forest (iForest) algorithm in which C-to-U editing events are considered as sequencing anomalies. Using in vitro synthesized and human ONT reads, our model optimizes the signal-to-noise ratio improving the detection of C-to-U editing sites with high accuracy, over 90% in all samples tested. Our results suggest that iForest, known for its rapid implementation and minimal memory requirements, is a promising tool to denoise ONT reads and reliably identify RNA modifications.
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.