ArticleBiophysical journal2006
Computer simulation study of molecular recognition in model DNA microarrays.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Submillimetre Network Formation by Light-induced Hybridization of Zeptomole-level DNA.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Kinetic mechanisms in morpholino-DNA surface hybridization.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2011Article
- Analysis of a DNA simulation model through hairpin melting experiments.The Journal of chemical physics · 2010Article
- Coarse-Grained Brownian Dynamics Simulations of the 10-23 DNAzyme.Biophysical journal · 2009Article
- Specificity of DNA microarray hybridization: characterization, effectors and approaches for data correction.Nucleic acids research · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
DNA microarrays have been widely adopted by the scientific community for a variety of applications. To improve the performance of microarrays there is a need for a fundamental understanding of the interplay between the various factors that affect microarray sensitivity and specificity. We use lattice Monte Carlo simulations to study the thermodynamics and kinetics of hybridization of single-stranded target genes in solution with complementary probe DNA molecules immobilized on a microarray surface. The target molecules in our system contain 48 segments and the probes tethered on a hard surface contain 8-24 segments. The segments on the probe and target are distinct and each segment represents a sequence of nucleotides ( approximately 11 nucleotides). Each probe segment interacts exclusively with its unique complementary target segment with a single hybridization energy; all other interactions are zero. We examine how the probe length, temperature, or hybridization energy, and the stretch along the target that the probe segments complement, affect the extent of hybridization. For systems containing single probe and single target molecules, we observe that as the probe length increases, the probability of binding all probe segments to the target decreases, implying that the specificity decreases. We observe that probes 12-16 segments ( approximately 132-176 nucleotides) long gave the highest specificity and sensitivity. This agrees with the experimental results obtained by another research group, who found an optimal probe length of 150 nucleotides. As the hybridization energy increases, the longer probes are able to bind all their segments to the target, thus improving their specificity. The hybridization kinetics reveals that the segments at the ends of the probe are most likely to start the hybridization. The segments toward the center of the probe remain bound to the target for a longer time than the segments at the ends of the probe.
Indexed as
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.