Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12060690›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2002

Improved detection of small deletions in complex pools of DNA.

Mark Edgley, Anil D'Souza, Gary Moulder, Sheldon McKay, Bin Shen, Erin Gilchrist, Donald Moerman, Robert Barstead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The application of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in Caenorhabditis elegans.Journal of genetics and genomics = Yi chuan xue bao · 2015
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Forward and reverse mutagenesis in C. elegans.WormBook : the online review of C. elegans biology · 2014
    Review
  7. Article
  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
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

8 authors.

Mark EdgleyBiotechnology Laboratory and Department of Zoology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada.
Anil D'Souza
Gary Moulder
Sheldon McKay
Bin Shen
Erin Gilchrist
Donald Moerman
Robert Barstead

Funding

LARGE SCALE HIGH THROUGHPUT GENE KNOCKOUT IN C ELEGANSR01HG001843 · NHGRI · OKLAHOMA MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI BARSTEAD, ROBERT JAMES · 1998 to 2005
$4.5M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG001843NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG01843
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

About 40% of the genes in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans have homologs in humans. Based on the history of this model system, it is clear that the application of genetic methods to the study of this set of genes would provide important clues to their function in humans. To facilitate such genetic studies, we are engaged in a project to derive deletion alleles in every gene in this set. Our standard methods make use of nested PCR to hunt for animals in mutagenized populations that carry deletions at a given locus. The deletion bearing animals exist initially in mixed populations where the majority of the animals are wild type at the target. Therefore, the production of the PCR fragment representing the deletion allele competes with the production of the wild type fragment. The size of the deletion fragment relative to wild type determines whether it can compete to a level where it can be detected above the background. Using our standard conditions, we have found that when the deletion is <600 bp, the deletion fragment does not compete effectively with the production of the wild type fragment in PCR. Therefore, although our standard methods work well to detect mutants with deletions >600 bp, they do not work well to detect mutants with smaller deletions. Here we report a new strategy to detect small deletion alleles in complex DNA pools. Our new strategy is a modification of our standard PCR based screens. In the first round of the nested PCR, we include a third PCR primer between the two external primers. The presence of this third primer leads to the production of three fragments from wild type DNA. We configure the system so that two of these three fragments cannot serve as a template in the second round of the nested PCR. The addition of this third primer, therefore, handicaps the amplification from wild type template. On the other hand, the amplification of mutant fragments where the binding site for the third primer is deleted is unabated. Overall, we see at least a 500-fold increase in the sensitivity for small deletion fragments using our new method. Using this new method, we report the recovery of new deletion alleles within 12 C.elegans genes.

Indexed as

DNA, HelminthSequence DeletionAllelesAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansDNADNA Mutational AnalysisGenes, HelminthPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityDNADNA, Helminth

Identifiers

PMID12060690
PMCPMC117294

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.