Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21085668›Full record

ArticlePloS one2010

Quantitative assessment of the sensitivity of various commercial reverse transcriptases based on armored HIV RNA.

John B A Okello, Linda Rodriguez, Debi Poinar, Kirsten Bos, Andrew L Okwi, Gabriel S Bimenya, Nelson K Sewankambo, Kenneth R Henry, Melanie Kuch, Hendrik N Poinar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Parallel detection of ancient pathogens via array-based DNA capture.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Gene Expression Profiling of FFPE Samples: A Titration Test.Technology in cancer research & treatment
    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

10 authors.

John B A OkelloDepartment of Anthropology, McMaster Ancient DNA Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. jokello@mcmaster.ca
Linda Rodriguez
Debi Poinar
Kirsten Bos
Andrew L Okwi
Gabriel S Bimenya
Nelson K Sewankambo
Kenneth R Henry
Melanie Kuch
Hendrik N Poinar

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe in-vitro reverse transcription of RNA to its complementary DNA, catalyzed by the enzyme reverse transcriptase, is the most fundamental step in the quantitative RNA detection in genomic studies. As such, this step should be as analytically sensitive, efficient and reproducible as possible, especially when dealing with degraded or low copy RNA samples. While there are many reverse transcriptases in the market, all claiming to be highly sensitive, there is need for a systematic independent comparison of their applicability in quantification of rare RNA transcripts or low copy RNA, such as those obtained from archival tissues. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe performed RT-qPCR to assess the sensitivity and reproducibility of 11 commercially available reverse transcriptases in cDNA synthesis from low copy number RNA levels. As target RNA, we used a serially known number of Armored HIV RNA molecules, and observed that 9 enzymes we tested were consistently sensitive to ∼1,000 copies, seven of which were sensitive to ∼100 copies, while only 5 were sensitive to ∼10 RNA template copies across all replicates tested. Despite their demonstrated sensitivity, these five best performing enzymes (Accuscript, HIV-RT, M-MLV, Superscript III and Thermoscript) showed considerable variation in their reproducibility as well as their overall amplification efficiency. Accuscript and Superscript III were the most sensitive and consistent within runs, with Accuscript and Superscript II ranking as the most reproducible enzymes between assays. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We therefore recommend the use of Accuscript or Superscript III when dealing with low copy number RNA levels, and suggest purification of the RT reactions prior to downstream applications (eg qPCR) to augment detection. Although the results presented in this study were based on a viral RNA surrogate, and applied to nucleic acid lysates derived from archival formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue, their relative performance on RNA obtained from other tissue types may vary, and needs future evaluation.

Indexed as

DNA, ComplementaryHIVHumansReproducibility of ResultsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionReverse TranscriptionRNA-Directed DNA PolymeraseRNA, ViralDNA, ComplementaryRNA-Directed DNA PolymeraseRNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID21085668
PMCPMC2978101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.