ArticlePloS one2015
Enzyme-Free Detection of Mutations in Cancer DNA Using Synthetic Oligonucleotide Probes and Fluorescence Microscopy.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optical and theoretical study of strand recognition by nucleic acid probes.Communications chemistry · 2020Article
- Peptide-Fluorophore Hydrogel as a Signal Boosting Approach in Rapid Detection of Cancer DNA.ACS omega · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid reliable diagnostics of DNA mutations are highly desirable in research and clinical assays. Current development in this field goes simultaneously in two directions: 1) high-throughput methods, and 2) portable assays. Non-enzymatic approaches are attractive for both types of methods since they would allow rapid and relatively inexpensive detection of nucleic acids. Modern fluorescence microscopy is having a huge impact on detection of biomolecules at previously unachievable resolution. However, no straightforward methods to detect DNA in a non-enzymatic way using fluorescence microscopy and nucleic acid analogues have been proposed so far. METHODS AND
resultsHere we report a novel enzyme-free approach to efficiently detect cancer mutations. This assay includes gene-specific target enrichment followed by annealing to oligonucleotides containing locked nucleic acids (LNAs) and finally, detection by fluorescence microscopy. The LNA containing probes display high binding affinity and specificity to DNA containing mutations, which allows for the detection of mutation abundance with an intercalating EvaGreen dye. We used a second probe, which increases the overall number of base pairs in order to produce a higher fluorescence signal by incorporating more dye molecules. Indeed we show here that using EvaGreen dye and LNA probes, genomic DNA containing BRAF V600E mutation could be detected by fluorescence microscopy at low femtomolar concentrations. Notably, this was at least 1000-fold above the potential detection limit.
conclusionOverall, the novel assay we describe could become a new approach to rapid, reliable and enzyme-free diagnostics of cancer or other associated DNA targets. Importantly, stoichiometry of wild type and mutant targets is conserved in our assay, which allows for an accurate estimation of mutant abundance when the detection limit requirement is met. Using fluorescence microscopy, this approach presents the opportunity to detect DNA at single-molecule resolution and directly in the biological sample of choice.
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.