ArticleBMC genomics2024
A single workflow for multi-species blood transcriptomics.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rare pathogenic structural variants show potential to enhance prostate cancer germline testing for African men.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood transcriptomic analysis is widely used to provide a detailed picture of a physiological state with potential outcomes for applications in diagnostics and monitoring of the immune response to vaccines. However, multi-species transcriptomic analysis is still a challenge from a technological point of view and a standardized workflow is urgently needed to allow interspecies comparisons.
resultsHere, we propose a single and complete total RNA-Seq workflow to generate reliable transcriptomic data from blood samples from humans and from animals typically used in preclinical models. Blood samples from a maximum of six individuals and four different species (rabbit, non-human primate, mouse and human) were extracted and sequenced in triplicates. The workflow was evaluated using different wet-lab and dry-lab criteria, including RNA quality and quantity, the library molarity, the number of raw sequencing reads, the Phred-score quality, the GC content, the performance of ribosomal-RNA and globin depletion, the presence of residual DNA, the strandness, the percentage of coding genes, the number of genes expressed, and the presence of saturation plateau in rarefaction curves. We identified key criteria and their associated thresholds to be achieved for validating the transcriptomic workflow. In this study, we also generated an automated analysis of the transcriptomic data that streamlines the validation of the dataset generated.
conclusionsOur study has developed an end-to-end workflow that should improve the standardization and the inter-species comparison in blood transcriptomics studies. In the context of vaccines and drug development, RNA sequencing data from preclinical models can be directly compared with clinical data and used to identify potential biomarkers of value to monitor safety and efficacy.
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.