ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
A comparative evaluation of computational models for RNA modification detection using nanopore sequencing with RNA004 chemistry.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Computational prediction of RNA modification site-disease associations: a systematic review.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Pooled it
- Compendium of RNA modifications for bacterial stress adaptation.Microbiology and molecular biology reviews : MMBR · 2026Review
- Characterization of METTL3/14-mediated m6A modification in human transcriptome using Nanopore direct RNA sequencing.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Dorado v5.2.0 de novo basecalling models for the detection of tRNA modifications using RNA004 chemistry.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Epitranscriptomic Analysis of A-to-I RNA Editing and mInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Systematic benchmarking of dorado basecalling models for RNA modification detection with highly multiplexed nanopore sequencing.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Integrating mass spectrometry with Nanopore direct RNA sequencing forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Article
- Isoform-specific m6A deposition and coordinated splicing shape mammalian transcriptome evolution.Nature communications · 2026Article
- A nanopore-based HIV-1 reference epitranscriptome.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Probing the epitranscriptome and RNA damage with nanopore direct RNA sequencing.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Stoichiometry-preserving and stochasticity-aware identification of m6A from direct RNA sequencing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Systematic evaluation of computational tools for multitype RNA modification detection using nanopore direct RNA sequencing.Nature methods · 2026Article
- Genomic language model mitigates chimera artifacts in nanopore direct RNA sequencing.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Long-Read Sequencing Reveals RNA Splicing Complexity in Human Diseases.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Exploiting nanopore sequencing advances for tRNA sequencing of human cancer models.NAR cancer · 2025Article
- Direct RNA sequencing enables improved transcriptome assessment and tracking of RNA modifications for medical applications.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Review
- FTO depletion does not alter mbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct RNA sequencing from Oxford Nanopore Technologies has become a valuable method for studying RNA modifications such as N6-methyladenosine (m6A) and pseudouridine (pseU). Recent advancements in the RNA004 chemistry substantially reduce sequencing errors compared to previous chemistries, promising enhanced accuracy for epitranscriptomic analysis. Here we benchmark the performance of two RNA modification detection models for RNA004 data, Dorado and m6Anet, using two wild-type (WT) cell lines (HEK293T and HeLa), with respective ground truths from GLORI and eTAM-seq, and in vitro transcribed (IVT) RNA as negative controls. We found that for m6A sites with ≥10% modification ratio and ≥ 10X coverage, Dorado has higher recall (~0.92) than m6Anet (~0.51). Among true positive predictions, there are high correlations of m6A modification stoichiometry (correlation coefficient of ~0.89 for Dorado-truth and ~ 0.72 for m6Anet-truth). However, combined assessment of WT and IVT datasets show that while the per-site false positive rate can be lower (~8% for Dorado and ~ 33% for m6Anet), both tools can have high per-site false discovery rate of m6A (~40% for Dorado and ~ 80% for m6Anet), or for pseU (~95% for Dorado). Motif analysis reveals that both tools exhibit high heterogeneity of false positive calls across sequence contexts. There is also a substantial overlap of false positive calls between the two IVT samples, suggesting a filtering strategy by compiling a set of low-confidence sites from diverse IVT samples. Our analysis highlights key strengths and limitations of the current generation of m6A detection algorithms and offers insights into optimizing thresholds and interpretability.
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.