ArticleBMC research notes2008
Whole genome amplification and its impact on CGH array profiles.
Article in BMC research notes, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (eHDGC) is Characterized by Subtle Genomic Instability and Active DNA Damage Response.Pathology oncology research : POR · 2019Article
- Comparative study of whole genome amplification and next generation sequencing performance of single cancer cells.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Copy number analysis by low coverage whole genome sequencing using ultra low-input DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tumor tissue.Genome medicine · 2016Article
- Cells Comprising the Prostate Cancer Microenvironment Lack Recurrent Clonal Somatic Genomic Aberrations.Molecular cancer research : MCR · 2016Article
- Whole genome amplification with SurePlex results in better copy number alteration detection using sequencing data compared to the MALBAC method.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Advances and applications of single-cell sequencing technologies.Molecular cell · 2015Review
- Cancer genomics: one cell at a time.Genome biology · 2014Review
- Article
- Characterising chromosome rearrangements: recent technical advances in molecular cytogenetics.Heredity · 2012Review
- Application of SNP array for rapid prenatal diagnosis: implementation, genetic counselling and diagnostic flow.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2011Article
- Single-tube linear DNA amplification (LinDA) for robust ChIP-seq.Nature methods · 2011Article
- Future medical applications of single-cell sequencing in cancer.Genome medicine · 2011Article
- Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing.Nature · 2011Article
- Digital transcriptome profiling from attomole-level RNA samples.Genome research · 2010Article
- Functional viral metagenomics and the next generation of molecular tools.Trends in microbiology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome array comparative genomic hybridisation (array CGH) platforms require a minimum of micrograms of DNA for the generation of reliable and reproducible data. For studies where there are limited amounts of genetic material, whole genome amplification (WGA) is an attractive method for generating sufficient quantities of genomic material from miniscule amounts of starting material. A range of WGA methods are available and the multiple displacement amplification (MDA) approach has been shown to be highly accurate, although amplification bias has been reported. In the current study, WGA was used to amplify DNA extracted from whole blood. In total, six array CGH experiments were performed to investigate whether the use of whole genome amplified DNA (wgaDNA) produces reliable and reproducible results. Four experiments were conducted on amplified DNA compared to unamplified DNA and two experiments on unamplified DNA compared to unamplified DNA.
findingsAll the experiments involving wgaDNA resulted in a high proportion of losses and gains of genomic material. Previously, amplification bias has been overcome by using amplified DNA in both the test and reference DNA. Our data suggests that this approach may not be effective, as the gains and losses introduced by WGA appears to be random and are not reproducible between different experiments using the same DNA.
conclusionIn light of these findings, the use of both amplified test and reference DNA on CGH arrays may not provide an accurate representation of copy number variation in the DNA.
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.