Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23189123›Full record

ArticlePloS one2012

Simulation of between repeat variability in real time PCR reactions.

Antoon Lievens, Stefan Van Aelst, Marc Van den Bulcke, Els Goetghebeur

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Antoon LievensPlatform for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, Scientific Institute of Public Health, Brussels, Belgium. antoon.lievens@ugent.be
Stefan Van Aelst
Marc Van den Bulcke
Els Goetghebeur

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While many decisions rely on real time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis few attempts have hitherto been made to quantify bounds of precision accounting for the various sources of variation involved in the measurement process. Besides influences of more obvious factors such as camera noise and pipetting variation, changing efficiencies within and between reactions affect PCR results to a degree which is not fully recognized. Here, we develop a statistical framework that models measurement error and other sources of variation as they contribute to fluorescence observations during the amplification process and to derived parameter estimates. Evaluation of reproducibility is then based on simulations capable of generating realistic variation patterns. To this end, we start from a relatively simple statistical model for the evolution of efficiency in a single PCR reaction and introduce additional error components, one at a time, to arrive at stochastic data generation capable of simulating the variation patterns witnessed in repeated reactions (technical repeats). Most of the variation in C(q) values was adequately captured by the statistical model in terms of foreseen components. To recreate the dispersion of the repeats' plateau levels while keeping the other aspects of the PCR curves within realistic bounds, additional sources of reagent consumption (side reactions) enter into the model. Once an adequate data generating model is available, simulations can serve to evaluate various aspects of PCR under the assumptions of the model and beyond.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalAlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceComputer SimulationReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID23189123
PMCPMC3506646

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.