ArticleNucleic acids research2026
Systematic benchmarking of dorado basecalling models for RNA modification detection with highly multiplexed nanopore 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.
- Nanopore Sequencing Reveals rRNA Modification Changes in Human Cells Experiencing Oxidative or Inflammatory Stress.ACS chemical biology · 2026Article
- Nanopore direct RNA sequencing and the epitranscriptome: Advances in mapping native RNA landscapes.iMeta · 2026Review
- Probing the epitranscriptome and RNA damage with nanopore direct RNA sequencing.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nanopore direct RNA sequencing holds promise for advancing our understanding of the epitranscriptome. Recently, Oxford Nanopore Technologies released basecalling models capable of detecting N6-methyladenosine (m6A), inosine (I), pseudouridine (Ψ), and 5-methylcytosine (m5C). However, their performance and cross-reactivity with other modifications remain largely unexplored. Here, we systematically benchmark four available modification-aware basecalling models by evaluating their per-read and per-site predictions across synthetic molecules and biological samples from diverse species. Models performed well on highly modified, balanced synthetic constructs (AUC = 0.93-0.97, PR-AUC = 0.84-0.91), but their performance dropped sharply on unbalanced datasets that reflect modification abundances in biological samples (PR-AUC: 0.04-0.09). Analysis of in vivo rRNA samples confirmed this limitation, with false-discovery rate ranging from 50% to 100%, even after filtering with modification-free controls. We identify two major sources of false positives: cross-reactivities with other modifications and current alterations at sites neighbouring a modified residue. Finally, we demonstrate that basecalling error- and current-based methods can accurately detect modifications, offering effective alternatives for modifications lacking dedicated models. Our results highlight the utility and limitations of modification-aware basecalling models for RNA modification detection, and underscore the importance of including control samples to mitigate false-positive predictions.
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.