Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Beyond the RNA Census: A Literature-Derived Measurement-Claim Framework for Low-Copy, Transient, Spatial, and Native-State RNA Analysis.

Created on 14 Oct 2026

Authors

Hidenori Tani

Published in

Critical reviews in analytical chemistry. Pages 1-31. Oct 13, 2026. Epub Oct 13, 2026.

Abstract

An analytical envelope, not biotype, sets a class of RNA measurement problem: one to a hundred copies per cell, lifetimes of minutes to one or two hours, or confinement finer than a dissociated cell. Inside it, short-read endpoint sequencing forfeits a figure of merit at a specific step, and information discarded upstream cannot be reconstructed downstream. This review audits that workflow stage by stage, then assesses nine modality families. The evidence base was assembled by a structured but non-exhaustive search: 40 query axes in PubMed, extended by targeted searches of every unfilled cell, 43 axes in OpenAlex, and a wider date window. Retrieval was capped, one author screened, and every supporting record appraised on five items. The outcome is a literature-derived decision framework that infers, rather than demonstrates, its ordering: a measurement claim returns the quantity to preserve, the modalities that preserve it, the disqualifying failure mode, and the recommended validation. Among the modalities represented in the retrieved evidence, none was shown to maximize counting fidelity, spatial coverage, absence of measurement-induced perturbation of a live process, and native-state preservation together. Among the literature retrieved here, no commutable reference material establishes traceability between in situ counting and extract-based quantification.

PMID:
42867064
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 14 Oct 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 6
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement