ArticleGenome biology2026
A comprehensive evaluation of long-read de novo transcriptome assembly.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptome Profiling of Leaves and Roots from Rooibos (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A comprehensive evaluation of long-read de novo transcriptome assembly.Genome biology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecently, de novo transcriptome assembly methods have been developed to utilise long-read data in cases where a reference genome is unavailable, such as in non-model organisms. Despite the potential of these tools, there remains a lack of benchmarking and established protocols for optimal reference-free, long-read transcriptome assembly and differential expression analysis.
resultsHere, we evaluate the long-read de novo transcriptome assembly tools, RATTLE, RNA-Bloom2 and isONform, and compare their performance to one of the leading short-read assemblers, Trinity. We assess various metrics across a range of datasets, which include simulated data and spike-in sequin transcripts, where ground truth is known, and real data from human and pea (Pisum sativum) samples, using a reference-based approach to define truth. To represent contemporary analysis scenarios, the datasets cover depths from 6 to 60 million reads, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) cDNA, ONT direct RNA and Pacific Biosciences (PacBio) 10 × single-cell sequencing. Critically, we assess the downstream impact of assembly choice on the detection of differential gene and transcript expression.
conclusionsOur results confirm that long reads generate longer assembled transcripts than short-reads for reference-free analysis, though limitations remain compared to reference-guided approaches, and suggest scope for improved accuracy and reduced redundancy. Of the de novo pipelines, RNA-Bloom2, coupled with Corset for transcript clustering, was the best performing in terms of both accuracy and computational efficiency. Our findings offer guidance when selecting the most effective strategy for long-read differential expression analysis, when a high-quality reference genome is unavailable.
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.