ArticleOxford open immunology2025
RNA-seq based T cell repertoire extraction compared with TCR-seq.
Article in Oxford open immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immunogenetics and TCR expression patterns together predict future T1D onset from multi-omic datasets.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- The protective role of γδ T cells in endometrial cancer.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of using RNA sequencing data as substrate for the computational extraction of T cell receptor sequences. Data from hundreds of thousands of samples is available as RNA sequencing. However, the use of these data for repertoires has not been contrasted against a gold standard. We conducted a benchmarking analysis, comparing T cell receptor data extracted from RNA sequencing to those obtained from T cell receptor sequencing (as gold standard) of the same tissue samples. The focus was on the extraction of Complementarity-Determining Region 3 (CDR3) sequences. To evaluate the influence of sequencing read lengths, samples were analyzed using both 75 base pair single-end and 150 base pair paired-end sequencing methods. In addition we calculated T cell abundance in these samples to test for any correlation between reads and abundance. The findings reveal a significant, perhaps too great, discrepancy between the ability to extract Complementarity-Determining Region 3 sequences from RNA sequencing data and the results obtained from TCR sequencing. The lack of significant improvement with longer read lengths, combined with the absence of correlation to T cell abundance, emphasize the necessity of using T cell receptor sequencing methodologies.
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.