ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Utilizing Nanopore direct RNA sequencing of blood from patients with sepsis for discovery of co- and post-transcriptional disease biomarkers.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Transcript architecture predetermines m6A remodeling and sensory neuron vulnerability in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Veterinary Herpesviruses: Experimental Tools for Transcriptomics and Neuroscience.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Characterising the Transcriptomic Response to Interferon and Infection in European Domestic Ferret Respiratory Tissues Using Long-Read RNA Sequencing.Immunology · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Sequencing Technologies for Detecting Antimicrobial Resistance in Bloodstream Infections.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Using synthetic RNA to benchmark poly(A) length inference from direct RNA sequencing.GigaScience · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRNA sequencing of whole blood has been increasingly employed to find transcriptomic signatures of disease states. These studies traditionally utilize short-read sequencing of cDNA, missing important aspects of RNA expression such as differential isoform abundance and poly(A) tail length variation.
methodsWe used Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing to sequence native mRNA extracted from whole blood from 12 patients with definite bacterial and viral sepsis and compared with results from matching Illumina short-read cDNA sequencing data. Additionally, we explored poly(A) tail length variation, novel transcript identification, and differential transcript usage.
resultsThe correlation of gene count data between Illumina cDNA- and Nanopore RNA-sequencing strongly depended on the choice of analysis pipeline; NanoCount for Nanopore and Kallisto for Illumina data yielded the highest mean Pearson's correlation of 0.927 at the gene level and 0.736 at the transcript isoform level. We identified 2 genes with differential polyadenylation, 9 genes with differential expression and 4 genes with differential transcript usage between bacterial and viral infection. Gene ontology gene set enrichment analysis of poly(A) tail length revealed enrichment of long tails in mRNA of genes involved in signaling and short tails in oxidoreductase molecular functions. Additionally, we detected 240 non-artifactual novel transcript isoforms.
conclusionsNanopore RNA- and Illumina cDNA-gene counts are strongly correlated, indicating that both platforms are suitable for discovery and validation of gene count biomarkers. Nanopore direct RNA-seq provides additional advantages by uncovering additional post- and co-transcriptional biomarkers, such as poly(A) tail length variation and transcript isoform usage.
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.