Distinct 5′ and 3′ Coverage Biases Shape Transcriptome Interpretation in Nanopore Direct RNA versus PCR-cDNA Sequencing

Long-read RNA sequencing enables isoform-resolved transcriptomics, but library preparation introduces systematic biases that shape biological interpretation. We benchmarked Oxford Nanopores two protocols, PCR-cDNA and direct RNA, using SKMM2 myeloma cells stimulated with interleukin-6 (IL-6) and ERCC synthetic spike-ins. Direct RNA produced longer, higher-quality reads and more high-confidence isoforms, but showed pronounced 5 prime coverage loss. PCR-cDNA yielded shorter fragments with 3 prime underrepresentation, detecting more low-abundance transcripts at reduced confidence. Protocol-specific biases had major consequences: differential expression analysis revealed limited overlap in IL-6 responsive genes, and pathway enrichment was broader in direct RNA. At the isoform level, differential transcript usage was almost entirely protocol-specific, with case studies (e.g. RPL22L1, GRB2, RNF220) illustrating concordance and divergence. ERCC controls confirmed these biases as technical rather than biological. Together, our results show that while both methods provide accurate gene-level quantification, transcript-level conclusions depend critically on protocol choice, highlighting the need for careful selection in long-read transcriptomics.