ArticleCroatian medical journal2012
STR-typing of ancient skeletal remains: which multiplex-PCR kit is the best?
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Review
- Art-omics: multi-omics meet archaeology and art conservation.Microbial biotechnology · 2020Review
- Genetic kinship and admixture in Iron Age Scytho-Siberians.Human genetics · 2019Article
- As solid as a rock-comparison of CE- and MPS-based analyses of the petrosal bone as a source of DNA for forensic identification of challenging cranial bones.International journal of legal medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo comparatively test nine co mmercially available short tandem repeat (STR)-multiplex kits (PowerPlex 16, 16HS, ES, ESI17, ESX17, S5 [all Promega]; AmpFiSTR Identifiler, NGM and SEfiler [all Applied Biosystems]) for their efficiency and applicability to analyze ancient and thus highly degraded DNA samples.
methodsFifteen human skeletal remains from the late medieval age were obtained and analyzed using the nine polymerase chain reaction assays with slightly modified protocols. Data were systematically compared to find the most meaningful and sensitive assay.
resultsThe ESI, ESX, and NGM kits showed the best overall results regarding amplification success, detection rate, identification of heterozygous alleles, sex determination, and reproducibility of the obtained data.
conclusionSince application of these three kits enables the employment of different primer sequences for all the investigated amplicons, a combined application is recommended for best possible and--most importantly--reliable genetic analysis of ancient skeletal material or otherwise highly degraded samples, e.g., from forensic cases.
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.