ArticleNucleic acids research2025
Detecting a wide range of epitranscriptomic modifications using a nanopore-sequencing-based computational approach with 1D score-clustering.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advanced deep learning strategies in nanopore RNA sequencing.RNA biology · 2026Review
- Systematic benchmarking of dorado basecalling models for RNA modification detection with highly multiplexed nanopore sequencing.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Systematic assessment of diverse RNA modifications using nanopore direct RNA sequencing.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Epitranscriptomic alterations induced by environmental toxins: implications for RNA modifications and disease.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
To date, over 40 epigenetic and 300 epitranscriptomic modifications have been identified. However, current short-read sequencing-based experimental methods can detect <10% of these modifications. Integrating long-read sequencing technologies with advanced computational approaches, including statistical analysis and machine learning, offers a promising new frontier to address this challenge. While supervised machine learning methods have achieved some success, their usefulness is restricted to a limited number of well-characterized modifications. Here, we introduce Modena, an innovative unsupervised learning approach utilizing long-read nanopore sequencing capable of detecting a broad range of modifications. Modena outperformed other methods in five out of six benchmark datasets, in some cases by a wide margin, while being equally competitive with the second best method on one dataset. Uniquely, Modena also demonstrates consistent accuracy on a DNA dataset, distinguishing it from other approaches. A key feature of Modena is its use of 'dynamic thresholding', an approach based on 1D score-clustering. This methodology differs substantially from the traditional statistics-based 'hard-thresholds.' We show that this approach is not limited to Modena but has broader applicability. Specifically, when combined with two existing algorithms, 'dynamic thresholding' significantly enhances their performance, resulting in up to a threefold improvement in F1-scores.
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.