Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23762227›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

DNA qualification workflow for next generation sequencing of histopathological samples.

Michele Simbolo, Marisa Gottardi, Vincenzo Corbo, Matteo Fassan, Andrea Mafficini, Giorgio Malpeli, Rita T Lawlor, Aldo Scarpa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 270 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integrated Morphological, Functional, and Genomic Analysis of a Novel Lytic Phage (VIT_AJPSC) Infecting Multidrug-Resistant Shigella dysenteriae.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Persistence ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. BrCNGC12 and BrCNGC16 mediate CaPlant biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Molecular Tools forMethods and protocols · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michele SimboloARC-NET Research Centre, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Marisa Gottardi
Vincenzo Corbo
Matteo Fassan
Andrea Mafficini
Giorgio Malpeli
Rita T Lawlor
Aldo Scarpa
University of Verona · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Histopathological samples are a treasure-trove of DNA for clinical research. However, the quality of DNA can vary depending on the source or extraction method applied. Thus a standardized and cost-effective workflow for the qualification of DNA preparations is essential to guarantee interlaboratory reproducible results. The qualification process consists of the quantification of double strand DNA (dsDNA) and the assessment of its suitability for downstream applications, such as high-throughput next-generation sequencing. We tested the two most frequently used instrumentations to define their role in this process: NanoDrop, based on UV spectroscopy, and Qubit 2.0, which uses fluorochromes specifically binding dsDNA. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used as the reference technique as it simultaneously assesses DNA concentration and suitability for PCR amplification. We used 17 genomic DNAs from 6 fresh-frozen (FF) tissues, 6 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, 3 cell lines, and 2 commercial preparations. Intra- and inter-operator variability was negligible, and intra-methodology variability was minimal, while consistent inter-methodology divergences were observed. In fact, NanoDrop measured DNA concentrations higher than Qubit and its consistency with dsDNA quantification by qPCR was limited to high molecular weight DNA from FF samples and cell lines, where total DNA and dsDNA quantity virtually coincide. In partially degraded DNA from FFPE samples, only Qubit proved highly reproducible and consistent with qPCR measurements. Multiplex PCR amplifying 191 regions of 46 cancer-related genes was designated the downstream application, using 40 ng dsDNA from FFPE samples calculated by Qubit. All but one sample produced amplicon libraries suitable for next-generation sequencing. NanoDrop UV-spectrum verified contamination of the unsuccessful sample. In conclusion, as qPCR has high costs and is labor intensive, an alternative effective standard workflow for qualification of DNA preparations should include the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit to assess the purity and quantity of dsDNA, respectively.

Indexed as

DNADNA, NeoplasmFormaldehydeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionObserver VariationParaffin EmbeddingReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNATissue FixationWorkflowDNADNA, NeoplasmFormaldehyde

Identifiers

PMID23762227
PMCPMC3675123
OpenAlexW1996472996

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.