ArticleClinical molecular pathology1996
Direct in situ nucleic acid amplification: control of artefact and use of labelled primers.
Article in Clinical molecular pathology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims-To evaluate factors which ameliorate false positive artefacts with direct in situ PCR using labelled dNTPs; to investigate the use of labelled primers to overcome this artefact whilst maintaining sensitivity.Methods-Sections of measles (RNA virus) infected Vero cells with cytoplasmic signal or cytomegalovirus (DNA virus) infected fibroblasts with nuclear signal were collected. In situ PCR (or in situ RT-PCR) was carried out by methods permitting evaporation. Reagents or conditions which may control false positive artefacts using labelled dNTPs were investigated systematically. Labelled primers were tested to overcome artefacts, with adjuncts which improve sensitivity.Results-No reagent nor condition investigated was able to control the artefact with labelled dNTPs. Excessive digestion and incomplete DNAse treatments exacerbated the artefact, whereas novobiocin decreased both specific signal and artefact. However, the artefact was controlled by labelled primers, albeit with relatively low sensitivity. Sensitivity using labelled primers could be increased using alcohol fixation, albumin or Perfectmatch.Conclusions-A repair process is implicated for the artefact using labelled dNTPs. Excessive digestion or DNAse treatment may exacerbate DNA damage by disrupting histones or the DNA, respectively. Labelled primers control this artefact, albeit with reduced sensitivity, which may be improved by precipitation fixatives (alcohol) and reagents which enhance specific reaction.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.