Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17295099›Full record

ArticleJournal of structural and functional genomics2006

Enzyme free cloning for high throughput gene cloning and expression.

Rob N de Jong, Mark A Daniëls, Rob Kaptein, Gert E Folkers

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of structural and functional genomics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Successful completion of a semi-automated enzyme-free cloning method.Journal of structural and functional genomics · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Flexi vector cloning.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2009
    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

4 authors.

Rob N de JongBijvoet Center for Biomolecular Research, Utrecht University, Padualaan 8, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mark A Daniëls
Rob Kaptein
Gert E Folkers

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structural and functional genomics initiatives significantly improved cloning methods over the past few years. Although recombinational cloning is highly efficient, its costs urged us to search for an alternative high throughput (HTP) cloning method. We implemented a modified Enzyme Free Cloning (EFC) procedure, a PCR-only method that eliminates all variables other than PCR efficiency by circumventing enzymatic treatments. We compared the cloning efficiency of EFC with that of Ligation Independent Cloning (LIC). Both methods are well suited for HTP cloning, but EFC yields three times more transformants and a cloning efficiency of 91%, comparable with recombinational cloning methods and significantly better than LIC (79%). EFC requires only nanogram amounts of both vector and insert, does not require highly competent cells and is, in contrast to LIC, largely insensitive to variations in PCR product concentration. Automated protein expression screening of expression strains directly transformed with EFC reactions showed, that the traditional preceding step via a cloning strain can be circumvented. EFC proves an efficient and robust HTP cloning method, that is compatible with existing Ligation Independent Cloning vectors, and highly suitable for automation.

Indexed as

EnzymesCloning, MolecularDNA LigasesGenetic VectorsGenomicsPolymerase Chain ReactionRecombinant ProteinsDNA LigasesEnzymesRecombinant Proteins

Identifiers

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.