Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11433041›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2001

Bisulfite genomic sequencing: systematic investigation of critical experimental parameters.

C Grunau, S J Clark, A Rosenthal

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 326 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
326citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

326 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 790 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

266 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C GrunauInstitute of Molecular Biotechnology, Department of Genome Analysis, Beutenbergstrasse 11, 07745 Jena, Germany.
S J Clark
A Rosenthal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bisulfite genomic sequencing is the method of choice for the generation of methylation maps with single-base resolution. The method is based on the selective deamination of cytosine to uracil by treatment with bisulfite and the sequencing of subsequently generated PCR products. In contrast to cytosine, 5-methylcytosine does not react with bisulfite and can therefore be distinguished. In order to investigate the potential for optimization of the method and to determine the critical experimental parameters, we determined the influence of incubation time and incubation temperature on the deamination efficiency and measured the degree of DNA degradation during the bisulfite treatment. We found that maximum conversion rates of cytosine occurred at 55 degrees C (4-18 h) and 95 degrees C (1 h). Under these conditions at least 84-96% of the DNA is degraded. To study the impact of primer selection, homologous DNA templates were constructed possessing cytosine-containing and cytosine-free primer binding sites, respectively. The recognition rates for cytosine (>/=97%) and 5-methylcytosine (>/=94%) were found to be identical for both templates.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationGenome5-MethylcytosineAminationBacteriophage M13Base SequenceChromatography, High Pressure LiquidCloning, MolecularCytosineDNADNA PrimersDNA, Single-StrandedDNA, ViralMolecular Sequence DataNucleic Acid DenaturationPlasmids5-MethylcytosineCytosineDNADNA PrimersDNA, Single-StrandedDNA, ViralSulfitesUracil

Identifiers

PMID11433041
PMCPMC55789
OpenAlexW2051974123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.