ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2011
Microarray-based evaluation of whole-community genome DNA amplification methods.
Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nitrogen Cycle Evaluation (NiCE) Chip for Simultaneous Analysis of Multiple N Cycle-Associated Genes.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2018Article
- Whole metagenome profiles of particulates collected from the International Space Station.Microbiome · 2017Article
- Viruses in case series of tumors: Consistent presence in different cancers in the same subject.PloS one · 2017Article
- Alterations of Bacteroides sp., Neisseria sp., Actinomyces sp., and Streptococcus sp. populations in the oropharyngeal microbiome are associated with liver cirrhosis and pneumonia.BMC infectious diseases · 2015Article
- Metagenomic analysis of the airborne environment in urban spaces.Microbial ecology · 2015Article
- Fidelity and representativeness of two isothermal multiple displacement amplification systems to preamplify limiting amounts of total RNA.Molecular biotechnology · 2014Article
- Caught in the middle with multiple displacement amplification: the myth of pooling for avoiding multiple displacement amplification bias in a metagenome.Microbiome · 2014Article
- Testing the reproducibility of multiple displacement amplification on genomes of clonal endosymbiont populations.PloS one · 2013Article
- Detection of Bacillus anthracis DNA in complex soil and air samples using next-generation sequencing.PloS one · 2013Article
- Use of functional gene arrays for elucidating in situ biodegradation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2012Article
- Selection in coastal Synechococcus (cyanobacteria) populations evaluated from environmental metagenomes.PloS one · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three whole-community genome amplification methods, Bst, REPLI-g, and Templiphi, were evaluated using a microarray-based approach. The amplification biases of all methods were <3-fold. For pure-culture DNA, REPLI-g and Templiphi showed less bias than Bst. For community DNA, REPLI-g showed the least bias and highest number of genes, while Bst had the highest success rate and was suitable for low-quality DNA.
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.