ArticlePloS one2011
Genotyping performance assessment of whole genome amplified DNA with respect to multiplexing level of assay and its period of storage.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic variants in the transcription regulatory region of MEGF10 are associated with autism in Chinese Han population.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Investigating the relationship between UMODL1 gene polymorphisms and high myopia: a case-control study in Chinese.BMC medical genetics · 2012Article
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
Whole genome amplification can faithfully amplify genomic DNA (gDNA) with minimal bias and substantial genome coverage. Whole genome amplified DNA (wgaDNA) has been tested to be workable for high-throughput genotyping arrays. However, issues about whether wgaDNA would decrease genotyping performance at increasing multiplexing levels and whether the storage period of wgaDNA would reduce genotyping performance have not been examined. Using the Sequenom MassARRAY iPLEX Gold assays, we investigated 174 single nucleotide polymorphisms for 3 groups of matched samples: group 1 of 20 gDNA samples, group 2 of 20 freshly prepared wgaDNA samples, and group 3 of 20 stored wgaDNA samples that had been kept frozen at -70°C for 18 months. MassARRAY is a medium-throughput genotyping platform with reaction chemistry different from those of high-throughput genotyping arrays. The results showed that genotyping performance (efficiency and accuracy) of freshly prepared wgaDNA was similar to that of gDNA at various multiplexing levels (17-plex, 21-plex, 28-plex and 36-plex) of the MassARRAY assays. However, compared with gDNA or freshly prepared wgaDNA, stored wgaDNA was found to give diminished genotyping performance (efficiency and accuracy) due to potentially inferior quality. Consequently, no matter whether gDNA or wgaDNA was used, better genotyping efficiency would tend to have better genotyping accuracy.
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.