ArticleNucleic acids research2026
Systematic assessment of diverse RNA modifications using nanopore direct RNA sequencing.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 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.
- Decoding the secrets of life with single-molecular translatomics: A revolutionary strategy in biology.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026Article
- Integrating mass spectrometry with Nanopore direct RNA sequencing forbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Mapping the rRNA methylome reveals contributions of methyltransferases to ribosome function and antibiotic sensitivity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While nanopore direct RNA sequencing has substantially advanced transcriptomics, its detection of RNA modifications remains primarily focused on abundant biological base modifications. However, therapeutic RNAs employ a diverse catalog of modifications, including base, sugar, and backbone modifications, to enhance stability and pharmacological properties. To address this gap, we systematically evaluated a set of therapeutically relevant modifications [phosphorothioate (PS)], sugar [2'-O-methylation (2'OMe), 2'-Fluoro (2'F), locked nucleic acid (LNA), 2'-O-(2'-methoxyethyl) (2'MOE)], and base [N1-methylpseudouridine (m1Ψ), 5-methylcytidine (m5C), 5-methoxyuridine (5moU), and 5-iodocytidine (5iodoC)] using direct RNA nanopore sequencing. Modifications were systematically analyzed using basecall errors, raw current signals, and modification-aware basecalling models. Ribose modifications, m1Ψ, and 5moU induced significant error rate increases and noticeable current alterations, whereas 2'OMe and 2'MOE affected dwell time adjacent to the pore. In contrast, PS linkages produced only slight current alterations without increasing basecalling errors. We further evaluated modification-aware basecallers for 2'OMe and m5C. While these tools can distinguish modification types, they are limited by poor quantification accuracy and high local error rates, especially for 2'OMe. This study establishes a critical performance baseline, clarifying the current capability and limitations of nanopore technology for the analysis of therapeutically relevant RNA modifications.
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.