Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22114554›Full record

ArticlePLoS pathogens2011

Ultra-efficient PrP(Sc) amplification highlights potentialities and pitfalls of PMCA technology.

Gian Mario Cosseddu, Romolo Nonno, Gabriele Vaccari, Cecilia Bucalossi, Natalia Fernandez-Borges, Michele Angelo Di Bari, Joaquin Castilla, Umberto Agrimi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS pathogens, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Translational Research in Alzheimer's and Prion Diseases.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Methods of Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Gian Mario CossedduDepartment of Veterinary Public Health and Food Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy. gianmario.cosseddu@iss.it
Romolo Nonno
Gabriele Vaccari
Cecilia Bucalossi
Natalia Fernandez-Borges
Michele Angelo Di Bari
Joaquin Castilla
Umberto Agrimi
Istituto Superiore di Sanità · ITScripps Research Institute · USIkerbasque · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to investigate the potential of voles to reproduce in vitro the efficiency of prion replication previously observed in vivo, we seeded protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA) reactions with either rodent-adapted Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) strains or natural TSE isolates. Vole brain homogenates were shown to be a powerful substrate for both homologous or heterologous PMCA, sustaining the efficient amplification of prions from all the prion sources tested. However, after a few serial automated PMCA (saPMCA) rounds, we also observed the appearance of PK-resistant PrP(Sc) in samples containing exclusively unseeded substrate (negative controls), suggesting the possible spontaneous generation of infectious prions during PMCA reactions. As we could not definitively rule out cross-contamination through a posteriori biochemical and biological analyses of de novo generated prions, we decided to replicate the experiments in a different laboratory. Under rigorous prion-free conditions, we did not observe de novo appearance of PrP(Sc) in unseeded samples of M109M and I109I vole substrates, even after many consecutive rounds of saPMCA and working in different PMCA settings. Furthermore, when positive and negative samples were processed together, the appearance of spurious PrP(Sc) in unseeded negative controls suggested that the most likely explanation for the appearance of de novo PrP(Sc) was the occurrence of cross-contamination during saPMCA. Careful analysis of the PMCA process allowed us to identify critical points which are potentially responsible for contamination events. Appropriate technical improvements made it possible to overcome PMCA pitfalls, allowing PrP(Sc) to be reliably amplified up to extremely low dilutions of infected brain homogenate without any false positive results even after many consecutive rounds. Our findings underline the potential drawback of ultrasensitive in vitro prion replication and warn on cautious interpretation when assessing the spontaneous appearance of prions in vitro.

Indexed as

AnimalsArvicolinaeBrainFalse Positive ReactionsNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPrion DiseasesPrionsProtein FoldingPrPSc ProteinsPrionsPrPSc Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22114554
PMCPMC3219717
OpenAlexW2029154248

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.