Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22655855›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2012

Characterization of whole genome amplified (WGA) DNA for use in genotyping assay development.

Tao Han, Ching-Wei Chang, Joshua C Kwekel, Ying Chen, Yun Ge, Francisco Martinez-Murillo, Donna Roscoe, Zivana Težak, Reena Philip, Karen Bijwaard and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ddRAD Sequencing and DNA Barcoding.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Optimized whole-genome amplification strategy for extremely AT-biased template.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tao HanDivision of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA. Tao.Han@fda.hhs.gov
Ching-Wei Chang
Joshua C Kwekel
Ying Chen
Yun Ge
Francisco Martinez-Murillo
Donna Roscoe
Zivana Težak
Reena Philip
Karen Bijwaard
James C Fuscoe
National Center for Toxicological Research · USCenter for Devices and Radiological Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized.

resultsTo assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA.

conclusionThe relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesAdultComparative Genomic HybridizationCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance RegulatorDNADNA Copy Number VariationsDNA ProbesFemaleGenotypeHumansMaleMiddle AgedReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSequence Analysis, DNAYoung AdultCystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance RegulatorDNADNA Probes

Identifiers

PMID22655855
PMCPMC3403925
OpenAlexW2018890486

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.