Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24086318›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Development of a reference standard of Escherichia coli DNA for residual DNA determination in China.

Lan Wang, Chunming Rao, Kai Gao, Yonghong Li, Zhihao Fu, Hua Bi, Junzhi Wang

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lan WangNational Institutes of Food and Drug Control, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Chunming Rao
Kai Gao
Yonghong Li
Zhihao Fu
Hua Bi
Junzhi Wang
National Institutes for Food and Drug Control · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This collaborative study developed the first national Escherichia coli (E. coli) DNA reference standard for standardizing quantitative residual DNA assay methods, fluorescence dye (PicoGreen) and quantitative PCR (q-PCR), which were widely employed to measure residual DNA contents of prokaryotic-derived recombinant products. High purity of E. coli strain BL21 was extracted by the cetyl triethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB)/phenol chloroform method, analyzed by UV-visible spectrophotometry and electrophoresis, diluted with tris-EDTA (TE) buffer and manually dispensed. Then, with a cooperative calibration among six laboratories, including five manufacturers and one national control laboratory, the concentration of E. coli DNA standard solution was determined as 96.2 μg/mL (95% C.I: 95.5-96.9 μg/mL, CV 3.4%). The candidate showed excellent stability both from accelerated degradation study and real time stability study. The applicability study showed that the E. coli DNA reference could reach the sensitivity of 0.781 ng/mL and 1 fg/μL, respectively, in fluorescent dye and q-PCR assay, and also had good linearity and precision. The consistency of the reference could meet the requirements of the national reference standard. As a conclusion, the candidate material was suitable to serve as a China national standard for E. coli residual DNA determination. The successful establishment of the E. coli DNA standard will facilitate the standardization of quantitative methods for testing residual host cell DNA.

Indexed as

ChinaDNA, BacterialElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelEscherichia coliFluorescent DyesHumansLimit of DetectionPolymerase Chain ReactionQuality ControlReference StandardsSpectrophotometry, UltravioletDNA, BacterialFluorescent Dyes

Identifiers

PMID24086318
PMCPMC3783418
OpenAlexW1964414155

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.