Cited by 753Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsGene expression and cancer classification

Comprehensive comparative analysis of strand-specific RNA sequencing methods

Open access
Levin, Joshua Z, Yassour, Moran, Adiconis, Xian, Nusbaum, Chad, Thompson, Dawn Anne, Friedman, Nir, Gnirke, Andreas, Regev, Aviv·2010·Nature Methods

Abstract

Strand-specific, massively parallel cDNA sequencing (RNA-seq) is a powerful tool for transcript discovery, genome annotation and expression profiling. There are multiple published methods for strand-specific RNA-seq, but no consensus exists as to how to choose between them. Here we developed a comprehensive computational pipeline to compare library quality metrics from any RNA-seq method. Using the well-annotated Saccharomyces cerevisiae transcriptome as a benchmark, we compared seven library-construction protocols, including both published and our own methods. We found marked differences in strand specificity, library complexity, evenness and continuity of coverage, agreement with known annotations and accuracy for expression profiling. Weighing each method's performance and ease, we identified the dUTP second-strand marking and the Illumina RNA ligation methods as the leading protocols, with the former benefitting from the current availability of paired-end sequencing. Our analysis provides a comprehensive benchmark, and our computational pipeline is applicable for assessment of future protocols in other organisms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nmeth.1491

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Removing the main axes of technical variation entirely may eliminate important aspects of the biological signal.

    “While several studies have opted to remove these axes of variation entirely27,65, this may result in eliminating important aspects of the biological signal.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levin, J. Z., Yassour, M., Adiconis, X., Nusbaum, C., Thompson, D. A., Friedman, N., Gnirke, A., & Regev, A.
Affiliations
  • Broad Institute (US)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
  • Levin, Joshua Z
  • Regev, Aviv
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2010-08-15
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
709-715
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2152045787
Cited by
753
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 79 · 2013: 79 · 2012: 64
FWCI
23.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PMC
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ca119176-10, DP1OD003958)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG003067)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01-CA119176)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
strand-specific RNA-seq, strand specificity, library complexity, benchmarking, computational pipeline
MeSH terms
Substrate Specificity, Gene Library, Sequence Analysis, RNA, DNA, Complementary, Computational Biology, Gene Expression Profiling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review