Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23738070›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology international2013

GAPDH Pseudogenes and the Quantification of Feline Genomic DNA Equivalents.

A Katrin Helfer-Hungerbuehler, Stefan Widmer, Regina Hofmann-Lehmann

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology international, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Occurrence ofMicroorganisms · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Occurrence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Protective immunity against infection with Mycoplasma haemofelis.Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI · 2015
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Katrin Helfer-HungerbuehlerClinical Laboratory, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 260, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland.
Stefan Widmer
Regina Hofmann-Lehmann
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is broadly used to detect and quantify nucleic acid targets. In order to determine cell copy number and genome equivalents, a suitable reference gene that is present in a defined number in the genome is needed, preferably as a single copy gene. For most organisms, a variable number of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) pseudogenes have been reported. However, it has been suggested that a single-copy of the GAPDH pseudogene is present in the feline genome and that a GAPDH assay can therefore be used to quantify feline genomic DNA (gDNA). The aim of this study was to determine whether one or more GAPDH pseudogenes are present in the feline genome and to provide a suitable alternative qPCR system for the quantification of feline cell copy number and genome equivalents. Bioinformatics and sequencing results revealed that not just one but several closely related GAPDH-like sequences were present in the cat genome. We thus identified, developed, optimized, and validated an alternative reference gene assay using feline albumin (fALB). Our data emphasize the need for an alternative reference gene, apart from the GAPDH pseudogene, for the normalization of gDNA levels. We recommend using the fALB qPCR assay for future studies.

Identifiers

PMID23738070
PMCPMC3655645
OpenAlexW2097044709

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.