Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40630932›Full record

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.

Natalia Zajac, Qin Zhang, Anna Bratus-Neuenschwander, Weihong Qi, Hella Anna Bolck, Tülay Karakulak, Tamara Carrasco Oltra, Holger Moch, Abdullah Kahraman, Hubert Rehrauer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Natalia ZajacFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-9572-3684
Qin ZhangFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Anna Bratus-NeuenschwanderFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Weihong QiFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8581-908X
Hella Anna BolckDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 12, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5157-0490
Tülay KarakulakSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Amphipôle, Quartier UNIL-Sorge, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-2774
Tamara Carrasco OltraFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Holger MochDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, Schmelzbergstrasse 12, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland.
Abdullah KahramanSwiss Institute of Bioinformatics, Amphipôle, Quartier UNIL-Sorge, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3523-4467
Hubert RehrauerFunctional Genomics Center Zurich, ETH Zurich and University of Zurich, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7612-9394

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

DNA, ComplementaryGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingSequence Analysis, RNASingle-Cell AnalysisTranscriptomeGene LibraryHumansDNA, Complementary

Identifiers

PMID40630932
PMCPMC12231600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.