ArticleBMC genomics2024
Sequencing accuracy and systematic errors of nanopore direct RNA sequencing.
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.
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
83 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanopore Sequencing for Chikungunya Virus: Principles and Application.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027Article
- Small variant calling in the era of long-read sequencing.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- PUS7 mRNA pseudouridylation is driven by RNA sequence, structure, and cell-type-specific features.Cell genomics · 2026Article
- Review
- MERGE-RNA: a physics-based model to predict RNA secondary structure ensembles with chemical probing.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Large-scale simulation of coverage and error rate tradeoffs for cancer detection in cell-free DNA whole-genome sequencing.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Primer-Less Species Identification Throughout Fungal (International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- SpliSync: Genomic language model-driven splice site correction of long RNA sequencing reads.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Derivation of elephant induced pluripotent stem cells.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Pentanucleotide repeat instability and transmission in benign adult familial myoclonic epilepsy types 1, 4, and 8.Epilepsia · 2026Article
- Epitranscriptomic Analysis of A-to-I RNA Editing and mInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Genestrip: exact and efficient read classification for selected groups of organisms.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Genomic in vitro transcription and Nanopore direct RNA sequencing of a human B-Lymphocyte cell line.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Barbell reveals and resolves demultiplexing and trimming issues in Nanopore data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- FIRST-seq: a nanopore-based cDNA sequencing platform for RNA modification and structure profiling.Genome biology · 2026Article
- Modular RNA:DNA Nanostructures Enable Nanopore Profiling of rRNA Processing and rRNA Variants.ACS nano · 2026Article
- Stalled translation on transcripts cleaved by RNase L activates signaling important for innate immunity.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Quantification of disease-associated RNA tandem repeats by nanopore sensing.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The Evolving Role of Genomic Technologies in Multiple Myeloma: Implications for Diagnosis, Risk Stratification and Resistance.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
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.