ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2025
Comparison of single-cell long-read and short-read transcriptome sequencing via cDNA molecule matching: quality evaluation of the MAS-ISO-seq approach.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 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.
- Hybrid untargeted short-read and targeted long-read RNA sequencing facilitates genotype-phenotype associations at single-cell resolution.Genome biology · 2026Article
- A practical guide to targeted single-cell RNA sequencing technologies.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Systematic evaluation of long- and short-read RNA-seq for human peripheral blood.NAR molecular medicine · 2026Article
- Bioinformatics frameworks for single-cell long-read sequencing: unlocking isoform-level resolution.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Heterogeneous and novel transcript expression in single cells of patient-derived clear cell renal cell carcinoma organoids.Genome research · 2025Article
- scTrends: A living review of commercial single-cell and spatial 'omic technologies.Cell genomics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-cell RNA sequencing is used for profiling gene expression differences between cells. It can be performed with short reads, which provide high-throughput and high-quality information at the gene level, or with long reads, which provide isoform resolution via preserving full-length transcripts. It is, however, unclear how comparable the data is between the two methods. We investigate the types of bias introduced at the library preparation and the bioinformatic processing steps on the transcripts recovered from long- and short-read sequencing, and the effects of filtering, enabled by sequencing of full-length transcripts, on gene expression. For each sample, we sequenced the same 10x Genomics 3' complementary DNA (cDNA) using Illumina short reads and Pacific Biosciences long reads and cross-compared each molecule matched through cell barcode and unique molecular identifier. We find that both methods render highly comparable results and recover a large proportion of cells and transcripts. However, platform-dependent cDNA library processing and data analysis steps introduce biases. Short-read sequencing provided higher sequencing depth, but long-read sequencing allowed for retaining transcripts shorter than 500 bp and for removal of degraded cDNA contaminated by template switching oligos. Filtering of artefacts, identifiable only from full-length transcripts, reduces gene count correlation between the two methods.
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.