Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26239916›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

A highly sensitive and specific method for the screening detection of genetically modified organisms based on digital PCR without pretreatment.

Wei Fu, Pengyu Zhu, Chenguang Wang, Kunlun Huang, Zhixin Du, Wenying Tian, Qin Wang, Huiyu Wang, Wentao Xu, Shuifang Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Wei FuThe Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Pengyu ZhuLaboratory of Food Safety, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.
Chenguang WangLaboratory of Food Safety, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China.
Kunlun Huang1] Laboratory of Food Safety, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China [2] The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, 100083, China.
Zhixin DuGuangxi Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, Guangxi, 530028, China.
Wenying Tian1] Laboratory of Food Safety, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China [2] The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, 100083, China.
Qin WangThe Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Huiyu WangThe Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Wentao Xu1] Laboratory of Food Safety, College of Food Science and Nutritional Engineering, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China [2] The Supervision, Inspection and Testing Center of Genetically Modified Organisms, Ministry of Agriculture, Beijing, 100083, China.
Shuifang ZhuThe Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing, 100029, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital PCR has developed rapidly since it was first reported in the 1990 s. It was recently reported that an improved method facilitated the detection of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, to use this improved method, the samples must be pretreated, which could introduce inaccuracy into the results. In our study, we explored a pretreatment-free digital PCR detection method for the screening for GMOs. We chose the CaMV35s promoter and the NOS terminator as the templates in our assay. To determine the specificity of our method, 9 events of GMOs were collected, including MON810, MON863, TC1507, MIR604, MIR162, GA21, T25, NK603 and Bt176. Moreover, the sensitivity, intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory reproducibility of our detection method were assessed. The results showed that the limit of detection of our method was 0.1%, which was lower than the labeling threshold level of the EU. The specificity and stability among the 9 events were consistent, respectively. The intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory reproducibility were both good. Finally, the perfect fitness for the detection of eight double-blind samples indicated the good practicability of our method. In conclusion, the method in our study would allow more sensitive, specific and stable screening detection of the GMO content of international trading products.

Indexed as

Plants, Genetically ModifiedTransgenesDNA, PlantGene DosageLimit of DetectionObserver VariationPolymerase Chain ReactionPromoter Regions, GeneticReproducibility of ResultsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedZea maysDNA, Plant

Identifiers

PMID26239916
PMCPMC4530665

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.