Nanopore native RNA sequencing of a human poly(A) transcriptome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT High throughput cDNA sequencing technologies have dramatically advanced our understanding of transcriptome complexity and regulation. However, these methods lose information contained in biological RNA because the copied reads are often short and because modifications are not carried forward in cDNA. We address these limitations using a native poly(A) RNA sequencing strategy developed by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT). Our study focused on poly(A) RNA from the human cell line GM12878, generating 9.9 million aligned sequence reads. These native RNA reads had an aligned N50 length of 1294 bases, and a maximum aligned length of over 21,000 bases. A total of 78,199 high-confidence isoforms were identified by combining long nanopore reads with short higher accuracy Illumina reads. We describe strategies for assessing 3′ poly(A) tail length, base modifications and transcript haplotypes from nanopore RNA data. Together, these nanopore-based techniques are poised to deliver new insights into RNA biology. DISCLOSURES MA holds shares in Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT). MA is a paid consultant to ONT. REW, WT, TG, JRT, JQ, NJL, JTS, NS, AB, MA, HEO, MJ, and ML received reimbursement for travel, accommodation and conference fees to speak at events organised by ONT. NL has received an honorarium to speak at an ONT company meeting. WT has two patents (8,748,091 and 8,394,584) licensed to Oxford Nanopore. JTS, ML and MA received research funding from ONT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".