Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24848516›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2015

Utility of amplification enhancers in low copy number DNA analysis.

Pamela L Marshall, Jonathan L King, Bruce Budowle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pamela L MarshallInstitute of Applied Genetics, Department of Forensic and Investigative Genetics, University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth, TX, 76107, USA, pamela.marshall@unthsc.edu.
Jonathan L King
Bruce Budowle
University of North Texas · USUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One parameter that impacts the robustness and reliability of forensic DNA analyses is the amount of template DNA used in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). With short tandem repeat (STR) typing, low copy number (LCN) DNA samples can present exaggerated stochastic effects during the PCR that result in heterozygote peak height imbalance, allele drop out, and increased stutter. Despite these effects, there has been little progress toward decreasing the formation of stutter products and heterozygote peak imbalance effects during PCR. In an attempt to develop a more robust system that is less refractory to stochastic effects, the PCR additives, betaine, DMSO, PEG, and PCRboost®, were investigated on low-quantity DNA samples. The effects of the additives were assessed by evaluating STR typing results. Of the four additives, the only positive effects were observed with betaine treatment. Betaine, at a final concentration of 1.25 mol/L, was found to improve the robustness of the amplification, specifically by decreasing stutter in a dual locus system. In contrast, the addition of 1.25 mol/L betaine to commercial STR amplification kits did not affect stutter ratios. However, the addition of betaine did lead to increased yield of PCR products in all commercial kits tested. The results support that betaine can improve amplification efficiency of LCN DNA samples.

Indexed as

AllelesBetaineDimethyl SulfoxideDNADNA FingerprintingHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsPolyethylene GlycolsPolymerase Chain ReactionBetaineDimethyl SulfoxideDNAPolyethylene Glycols

Identifiers

PMID24848516
OpenAlexW1968685808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.