ArticlePloS one2014
A fast-and-robust profiler for improving polymerase chain reaction diagnostics.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design of Experiments As a Tool for Optimization in Recombinant Protein Biotechnology: From Constructs to Crystals.Molecular biotechnology · 2019Review
- Taguchi-generalized regression neural network micro-screening for physical and sensory characteristics of bread.Heliyon · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an in vitro technology in molecular genetics that progressively amplifies minimal copies of short DNA sequences in a fast and inexpensive manner. However, PCR performance is sensitive to suboptimal processing conditions. Compromised PCR conditions lead to artifacts and bias that downgrade the discriminatory power and reproducibility of the results. Promising attempts to resolve the PCR performance optimization issue have been guided by quality improvement tactics adopted in the past for industrial trials. Thus, orthogonal arrays (OAs) have been employed to program quick-and-easy structured experiments. Profiling of influences facilitates the quantification of effects that may counteract the detectability of amplified DNA fragments. Nevertheless, the attractive feature of reducing greatly the amount of work and expenditures by planning trials with saturated-unreplicated OA schemes is known to be relinquished in the subsequent analysis phase. This is because of an inherent incompatibility of ordinary multi-factorial comparison techniques to convert small yet dense datasets. Treating unreplicated-saturated data with either the analysis of variance (ANOVA) or regression models destroys the information extraction process. Both of those mentioned approaches are rendered blind to error since the examined effects absorb all available degrees of freedom. Therefore, in lack of approximating an experimental uncertainty, any outcome interpretation is rendered subjective. We propose a profiling method that permits the non-linear maximization of amplicon resolution by eliminating the necessity for direct error estimation. Our approach is distribution-free, calibration-free, simulation-free and sparsity-free with well-known power properties. It is also user-friendly by promoting rudimentary analytics. Testing our method on published amplicon count data, we found that the preponderant effect is the concentration of MgCl2 (p<0.05) followed by the primer content (p<0.1) whilst the effects due to either the content of the deoxynucleotide (dNTP) or DNA remained dormant (p>0.1). Comparison of the proposed method with other stochastic approaches is also discussed. Our technique is expected to have extensive applications in genetics and biotechnology where there is a demand for cheap, expedient, and robust information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.