ReviewGenomics & informatics2026
Recovering CDR3 sequences from RNA-seq data: a critical assessment of computational and experimental strategies.
Review in Genomics & informatics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adaptive immune response depends on T cell receptor (TCR) diversity to counter cancers, autoimmunity, and infections. This diversity is encoded within CDR3, which serves as a unique barcode for each T cell clone. Characterizing CDR3 sequences is essential for tracking clonal dynamics, identifying neoantigen-reactive T cells, and designing personalized immunotherapy. While TCR-seq remains the benchmark, existing RNA-seq datasets offer a cost-effective retrospective alternative. However, tools like MiXCR and TRUST4, optimized for TCR-enriched samples, are limited in bulk and single-cell RNA-seq due to low transcript abundance and sparse coverage. In this review, we synthesize quantitative evidence from published head-to-head benchmarking studies that performed matched RNA-seq and TCR-seq on the same biological samples. These studies demonstrate that standard RNA-seq typically recovers only 3-5% of unique clonotypes identified by TCR-seq, with substantial underrepresentation of low-frequency clones; however, in T cell-rich tissues and when high sequencing depth is combined with optimized computational pipelines, RNA-seq can capture the majority of high-frequency clonotypes, albeit with limited accuracy in clonotype frequency estimation and poor α/β pairing recovery. We review computational efforts to recover CDR3 sequences from RNA-seq data, highlighting recurrent obstacles: transcript scarcity, fragmentation, short reads, and assembly errors. We critically assess whether artificial intelligence can overcome these barriers. We also examine emerging wet-lab strategies including probe-based enrichment, FUME-TCRseq, and rhTCRseq. We conclude that RNA-seq cannot replace TCR-seq, but AI-enhanced tools with targeted library improvements could expand the utility of existing datasets and degraded specimens.
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.