ArticleThe journal of physical chemistry. B2010
Separating DNA with different topologies by atomic force microscopy in comparison with gel electrophoresis.
Article in The journal of physical chemistry. B, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atomic force microscopy-A tool for structural and translational DNA research.APL bioengineering · 2021Review
- Nanostructure and Corresponding Quenching Efficiency of Fluorescent DNA Probes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- Ectoine protects DNA from damage by ionizing radiation.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Atomic force microscopy, which is normally used for DNA imaging to gain qualitative results, can also be used for quantitative DNA research, at a single-molecular level. Here, we evaluate the performance of AFM imaging specifically for quantifying supercoiled and relaxed plasmid DNA fractions within a mixture, and compare the results with the bulk material analysis method, gel electrophoresis. The advantages and shortcomings of both methods are discussed in detail. Gel electrophoresis is a quick and well-established quantification method. However, it requires a large amount of DNA, and needs to be carefully calibrated for even slightly different experimental conditions for accurate quantification. AFM imaging is accurate, in that single DNA molecules in different conformations can be seen and counted. When used carefully with necessary correction, both methods provide consistent results. Thus, AFM imaging can be used for DNA quantification, as an alternative to gel electrophoresis.
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.