ArticleNucleic acids research2025
Knowing is not enough; we must apply: the case for rigorous microRNA annotation standards.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- bayesReact: expression-coupled regulatory motif analysis detects microRNA activity across cancers, tissues, and at the single-cell level.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MicroRNAs are by far the most extensively studied and best-characterized class of small RNAs. This depth of knowledge may partly explain the persistent eagerness in the field to classify new sequences as microRNAs-since labeling a molecule as such often implies immediate functional insight and biological relevance. However, this enthusiasm has led to the publication and deposition of thousands of spurious microRNA entries in public repositories, increasing the risk of misinterpretation-particularly when these sequences are linked to human disease. To address this, we present a concise, four-part checklist for evaluating putative microRNAs, based on structural, genomic, functional, and expression-related criteria. Applying it to "Mir-690" and nine other examples, which are not listed in the curated microRNA database MirGeneDB, but highly cited, we find no support for their classification as microRNAs. They fail to meet core microRNA annotation criteria, lack structural features, conservation of targets, and reproducible or microRNA-typical expression evidence. Our findings underscore the need for heightened scrutiny and standardized validation in microRNA research. The checklist we provide offers a practical tool for authors, editors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess microRNA claims-particularly when such sequences are proposed as biomarkers or therapeutic targets in translational studies.
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.