ArticleNAR molecular medicine2026
Systematic evaluation of long- and short-read RNA-seq for human peripheral blood.
Article in NAR molecular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-coding RNAs as central regulators of phytohormone signaling in plant abiotic stress responses.Plant molecular biology · 2026Review
- Review
- Long-Read Sequencing Reveals RNA Splicing Complexity in Human Diseases.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technologies enable comprehensive transcriptomic profiling, yet systematic comparisons using identical biological samples remain limited. Here, we performed a multi-faceted comparison of long-read (PacBio) and short-read (Illumina) RNA-seq using the same RNA from peripheral blood cells of four healthy donors. Unlike prior studies that aggregate datasets from different sources, this study evaluates platform-dependent performance across gene expression, transcript variants, fusion genes, primary microRNAs (pri-miRNAs), and immune receptor complementarity-determining region 3 (CDR3) regions using widely available software, highlighting both reproducibility and accessibility. Long-read sequencing outperformed short-read sequencing in detecting complex alternative splicing events, novel transcript isoforms, and full-length immune receptor sequences, particularly immunoglobulin heavy chains, enhancing clonotype resolution. Both platforms captured largely overlapping pri-miRNAs and CDR3 sequences, but each also detected unique elements, demonstrating that total RNA can serve as a proxy for these specialized features when dedicated kits are not used. Short-read sequencing retained superior quantification accuracy for highly expressed genes and stronger concordance with microarray data. Collectively, our findings reveal the complementary strengths of long- and short-read RNA-seq and provide a practical framework for systematic, side-by-side comparison of transcriptomic features, emphasizing the benefits of using the same input material and standard analysis pipelines.
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.