ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2013
Whole genome amplification of degraded and nondegraded DNA for forensic purposes.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment and validation of a DIP panel for forensic ancestry inference and personal identification.Human genomics · 2025Article
- Development of a novel five dye insertion/deletion (INDEL) panel for ancestry determination.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- New Perspectives for Whole Genome Amplification in Forensic STR Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Accurate genomic variant detection in single cells with primary template-directed amplification.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Evaluation and SNP typing of DNA from ultraviolet-irradiated human bloodstains using TaqMan assay.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- DIP-microhaplotypes: new markers for detection of unbalanced DNA mixtures.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- DNA typing from skeletal remains: a comparison between capillary electrophoresis and massively parallel sequencing platforms.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Degraded DNA is often analyzed in forensic genetics laboratories. Reliable analysis of degraded DNA is of great importance, since its results impact the quality and reliability of expert testimonies. Recently, a number of whole genome amplification (WGA) methods have been proposed as preamplification tools. They work on the premise of being able to generate microgram quantities of DNA from as little as the quantity of DNA from a single cell. We chose, investigated, and compared seven WGA methods to evaluate their ability to "recover" degraded and nondegraded DNA: degenerate oligonucleotide-primed PCR, primer extension preamplification PCR, GenomePlex™ WGA commercial kit (Sigma), multiple displacement amplification, GenomiPhi™ Amplification kit (Amersham Biosciences), restriction and circularization-aided rolling circle amplification, and blunt-end ligation-mediated WGA. The efficiency and reliability of those methods were analyzed and compared using SGMPlus, YFiler, mtDNA, and Y-chromosome SNP typing. The best results for nondegraded DNA were obtained with GenomiPhi and PEP methods. In the case of degraded DNA (200 bp), the best results were obtained with GenomePlex which successfully amplified also severely degraded DNA (100 bp), thus enabling correct typing of mtDNA and Y-SNP loci. WGA may be very useful in analysis of low copy number DNA or degraded DNA in forensic genetics, especially after introduction of some improvements (sample pooling and replicate DNA typing).
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.