ArticleAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2026
A Real-Data-Driven Framework for Evaluating Differential Transcript Usage Methods Across Long-Read Bulk, Single-Cell, and Spatial Transcriptomics.
Article in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Differential transcript usage (DTU) analysis reveals transcript-level regulation in alternative splicing. With the rapid adoption of long-read sequencing in bulk, single-cell, and spatial transcriptomics, reliable evaluation of DTU methods under real biological conditions becomes essential. Current evaluation frameworks mainly rely on simulated data, which can introduce bias and may not reflect true regulatory mechanisms. A real-data-driven framework is constructed to evaluate DTU methods across long-read bulk, single-cell, and spatial transcriptomics. The framework includes two key components. First, a biologically grounded reference transcript set is defined using RNA-binding protein (RBP) knockout or knockdown RNA-seq data together with experimentally validated RBP-transcript interactions. Second, a DTU-specific evaluation metric, the transcript set enrichment score, is introduced to quantify how effectively a method prioritizes reference transcripts in ranked results. The framework is systematically validated for reliability, unbiasedness, stability, effectiveness, and robustness using multiple real RNA-seq datasets. Supported by this validation, ten representative DTU methods are evaluated across long-read and short-read data, revealing performance differences across data types. Beyond evaluating DTU methods, the framework is further extended to predict transcript-level RBP activity, recovering perturbed RBPs more consistently than gene-level differential expression strategies. Together, this study establishes a biologically interpretable and data-driven standard for DTU method evaluation.
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.