ArticleGenome biology2026
The hidden sources of spurious fusion transcripts in plants.
Article in Genome biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The hidden sources of spurious fusion transcripts in plants.Genome biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFusion transcripts, first characterized in cancer, have been increasingly reported in plants with the expansion of next-generation sequencing. However, their prevalence and biological relevance remain highly debated, particularly given the technical challenges associated with their detection.
resultsHere, by integrating multiple high-quality long-read RNA sequencing datasets from rice, we present a systematic assessment of fusion transcript detection in plants and demonstrate that almost all detected fusion transcripts arise from technical and analytical artifacts rather than genuine biological events. Mechanistically, we identify short homologous sequence mediated template switching during reverse transcription as the predominant source of spurious fusions, especially in PCR-based workflows. Additional contributors include misalignment, reference genome bias, and gene misannotation. We further uncover recurrent artifact hotspots that explain the non-random distribution of fusion signals. Through redesigned in vitro and in vivo validation experiments, we demonstrate that commonly detected fusion signals lack reproducibility and do not reflect true transcriptomic events. Importantly, we establish a gold-standard validation pipeline prioritizing long-read direct RNA data, reference-aware mapping, and rigorous experimental validation to establish new reproducibility criteria for identifying authentic fusion transcripts.
conclusionsOur study provides a comprehensive, plant-focused experimental dissection of fusion transcript artifacts across sequencing platforms. These findings challenge prevailing assumptions about the abundance of fusion transcripts in plants and establish a robust framework for their reliable identification, with broad implications for transcriptomics studies in complex genomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.