ReviewViruses2025
Next-Generation Sequencing Methods to Determine the Accuracy of Retroviral Reverse Transcriptases: Advantages and Limitations.
Review in Viruses, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Retroviruses, like other RNA viruses, mutate at very high rates and exist as genetically heterogeneous populations. The error-prone activity of viral reverse transcriptase (RT) is largely responsible for the observed variability, most notably in HIV-1. In addition, RTs are widely used in biotechnology to detect RNAs and to clone expressed genes, among many other applications. The fidelity of retroviral RTs has been traditionally analyzed using enzymatic (gel-based) or reporter-based assays. However, these methods are laborious and have important limitations. The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies opened the possibility of obtaining reverse transcription error rates from a large number of sequences, although appropriate protocols had to be developed. In this review, we summarize the developments in this field that allowed the determination of RNA-dependent DNA synthesis error rates for different RTs (viral and non-viral), including methods such as PRIMER IDs, REP-SEQ, ARC-SEQ, CIR-SEQ, SMRT-SEQ and ROLL-SEQ. Their advantages and limitations are discussed. Complementary DNA (cDNA) synthesis error rates obtained in different studies, using RTs and RNAs of diverse origins, are presented and compared. Future improvements in methodological pipelines will be needed for the precise identification of mutations in the RNA template, including modified bases.
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.