Background Polyadenylation at the 3′ end of mRNA regulates transcript stability, export, and translation, but poly(A) tail length and polyadenylation-site usage remain difficult to resolve from nanopore sequencing data because of homopolymer-associated errors and complex 3′ end architectures. We developed PolyAnalysis, a signal-level computational framework for estimating poly(A) tail length from raw Oxford Nanopore Technologies signals and linking per-read estimates to confidence-aware analyses of polyadenylation sites, alternative polyadenylation, and repetitive-element-associated 3′ ends. Results PolyAnalysis combines CNN–BiLSTM-based region classification with multi-task connectionist temporal classification decoding and adenine-aware training and decoding to infer poly(A)-proximal boundaries, tail length, and model-derived sequence features. Benchmarking against Nanopolish, tailfindr, and Dorado on controlled RNA002 and RNA004 datasets showed competitive tail-length accuracy and high callability. Component-wise ablation and bias-control analyses indicated that region classification, multi-task optimization, adenine-weighted loss, and A-rich decoding jointly contributed to performance. Application to human cell-line and vertebrate transcriptome datasets identified dataset-level variation in tail-length distributions, gene-level heterogeneity, and weak associations with steady-state transcript abundance. Confidence-based filtering separated database-matched, high-confidence novel-candidate and low-confidence polyadenylation sites, while ambiguity-aware endogenous-retrovirus analyses distinguished locus-level from family-level evidence. Conclusions PolyAnalysis provides a benchmarked framework for nanopore-based poly(A) tail-length estimation and a confidence-aware basis for exploratory 3′ end profiling. Tail-length estimation is the most extensively validated output, whereas sequence-composition, PAS/APA, and ERV-related results remain dependent on model assumptions, sequencing chemistry, and annotation quality and require further orthogonal validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: