Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38807060›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Sequencing accuracy and systematic errors of nanopore direct RNA sequencing.

Wang Liu-Wei, Wiep van der Toorn, Patrick Bohn, Martin Hölzer, Redmond P Smyth, Max von Kleist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Nanopore Sequencing for Chikungunya Virus: Principles and Application.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Primer-Less Species Identification Throughout Fungal (International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Epitranscriptomic Analysis of A-to-I RNA Editing and mInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Wang Liu-WeiSystems Medicine of Infectious Disease (P5), Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany. liuwei.wang@fu-berlin.de.
Wiep van der Toorn *Systems Medicine of Infectious Disease (P5), Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Patrick Bohn *Helmholtz Institute for RNA-based Infection Research, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Würzburg, Germany.
Martin HölzerGenome Competence Center (MF1), Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Redmond P SmythHelmholtz Institute for RNA-based Infection Research, Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Würzburg, Germany.
Max von KleistSystems Medicine of Infectious Disease (P5), Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany. max.kleist@fu-berlin.de.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 031L0176A/BH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 955974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDirect RNA sequencing (dRNA-seq) on the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) platforms can produce reads covering up to full-length gene transcripts, while containing decipherable information about RNA base modifications and poly-A tail lengths. Although many published studies have been expanding the potential of dRNA-seq, its sequencing accuracy and error patterns remain understudied.

resultsWe present the first comprehensive evaluation of sequencing accuracy and characterisation of systematic errors in dRNA-seq data from diverse organisms and synthetic in vitro transcribed RNAs. We found that for sequencing kits SQK-RNA001 and SQK-RNA002, the median read accuracy ranged from 87% to 92% across species, and deletions significantly outnumbered mismatches and insertions. Due to their high abundance in the transcriptome, heteropolymers and short homopolymers were the major contributors to the overall sequencing errors. We also observed systematic biases across all species at the levels of single nucleotides and motifs. In general, cytosine/uracil-rich regions were more likely to be erroneous than guanines and adenines. By examining raw signal data, we identified the underlying signal-level features potentially associated with the error patterns and their dependency on sequence contexts. While read quality scores can be used to approximate error rates at base and read levels, failure to detect DNA adapters may be a source of errors and data loss. By comparing distinct basecallers, we reason that some sequencing errors are attributable to signal insufficiency rather than algorithmic (basecalling) artefacts. Lastly, we generated dRNA-seq data using the latest SQK-RNA004 sequencing kit released at the end of 2023 and found that although the overall read accuracy increased, the systematic errors remain largely identical compared to the previous kits.

conclusionsAs the first systematic investigation of dRNA-seq errors, this study offers a comprehensive overview of reproducible error patterns across diverse datasets, identifies potential signal-level insufficiency, and lays the foundation for error correction methods.

Indexed as

Nanopore SequencingSequence Analysis, RNAAnimalsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNanoporesRNARNADirect RNA sequencingEpitranscriptomicsNanopore sequencingSequencing accuracySequencing errorsSQK-RNA004Transcriptomics

Identifiers

PMID38807060
PMCPMC11134706

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.