ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2025
All the sites we cannot see: Sources and mitigation of false negatives in RNA modification studies.
Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigation of TRMT61B methyltransferase activity on mRNA and its effects on translation.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- RNA-seq variants reveal distinct patterns in the aging epitranscriptome: an in-depth analysis of age-matched Alzheimer's Disease patients and a cognitively normal cohort.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive discovery of mNature communications · 2025Article
- Investigation of TRMT61B methyltransferase activity on mRNA and its effects on translation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- DDX3X acts as a selective dual switch regulator of mRNA translation in acute ER stress.Cell reports · 2025Article
- ModiDeC: a multi-RNA modification classifier for direct nanopore sequencing.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RNA modifications are essential for human health - too much or too little of them leads to serious illnesses ranging from neurodevelopmental disorders to cancer. Technical advances in RNA modification sequencing are beginning to uncover the RNA targets of diverse RNA-modifying enzymes that are dysregulated in disease. However, the emerging transcriptome-wide maps of modified nucleosides installed by these enzymes should be considered as first drafts. In particular, a range of technical artefacts lead to false negatives - modified sites that are overlooked owing to technique-dependent, and often sequence-context-specific, 'blind spots'. In this Review, we discuss potential sources of false negatives in sequencing-based RNA modification maps, propose mitigation strategies and suggest guidelines for transparent reporting of sensitivity to detect modified sites in profiling studies. Important considerations for recognition and avoidance of false negatives include assessment and reporting of position-specific sequencing depth, identification of protocol-dependent RNA capture biases and applying controls for false negatives as well as for false positives. Despite their limitations, emerging maps of RNA modifications reveal exciting and largely uncharted potential for post-transcriptional control of all aspects of RNA function.
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.