Compares long-read and short-read RNA-seq techniques, revealing their complementary strengths in transcriptomic profiling.
RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) technologies enable comprehensive transcriptomic profiling, yet systematic comparisons using identical biological samples remain limited. Here, we performed a multi-faceted comparison of long-read (PacBio) and short-read (Illumina) RNA sequencing using the same RNA from peripheral blood cells of four healthy donors. Unlike prior studies that aggregate datasets from different sources, this study evaluates platform-dependent performance across gene expression, transcript variants, fusion genes, primary microRNAs (pri-miRNAs), and immune receptor complementarity-determining region 3 (CDR3) regions using widely available software, highlighting both reproducibility and accessibility. Long-read sequencing outperformed short-read sequencing in detecting complex alternative splicing events, novel transcript isoforms, and full-length immune receptor sequences, particularly immunoglobulin heavy chains, enhancing clonotype resolution. Both platforms captured largely overlapping pri-miRNAs and CDR3 sequences, but each also detected unique elements, demonstrating that total RNA can serve as a proxy for these specialized features when dedicated kits are not used. Short-read sequencing retained superior quantification accuracy for highly expressed genes and stronger concordance with microarray data. Collectively, our findings reveal the complementary strengths of long- and short-read RNA-seq and provide a practical framework for systematic, side-by-side comparison of transcriptomic features, emphasizing the benefits of using the same input material and standard analysis pipelines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Iwabuchi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: