Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26937682›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions.

Yuki Nakayama, Hiromi Yamaguchi, Naoki Einaga, Mariko Esumi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing 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

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Complete Mitochondrial Genomes of Two Species of the GenusAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The first complete mitochondrial genome ofFrontiers in genetics · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. DNA Isolation Long-Read Genomic Sequencing in Ctenophores.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Yuki NakayamaDepartment of Pathology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiromi YamaguchiDepartment of Pathology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Naoki EinagaDepartment of Pathology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Mariko EsumiDepartment of Pathology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Itabashi-ku, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Qubit fluorometer is a DNA quantification device based on the fluorescence intensity of fluorescent dye binding to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). Qubit is generally considered useful for checking DNA quality before next-generation sequencing because it measures intact dsDNA. To examine the most accurate and suitable methods for quantifying DNA for quality assessment, we compared three quantification methods: NanoDrop, which measures UV absorbance; Qubit; and quantitative PCR (qPCR), which measures the abundance of a target gene. For the comparison, we used three types of DNA: 1) DNA extracted from fresh frozen liver tissues (Frozen-DNA); 2) DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver tissues comparable to those used for Frozen-DNA (FFPE-DNA); and 3) DNA extracted from the remaining fractions after RNA extraction with Trizol reagent (Trizol-DNA). These DNAs were serially diluted with distilled water and measured using three quantification methods. For Frozen-DNA, the Qubit values were not proportional to the dilution ratio, in contrast with the NanoDrop and qPCR values. This non-proportional decrease in Qubit values was dependent on a lower salt concentration, and over 1 mM NaCl in the DNA solution was required for the Qubit measurement. For FFPE-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were lower than the NanoDrop values. However, electrophoresis revealed that qPCR reflected the degree of DNA fragmentation more accurately than Qubit. Thus, qPCR is superior to Qubit for checking the quality of FFPE-DNA. For Trizol-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were consistently lower than the NanoDrop values, similar to FFPE-DNA. However, the qPCR values were higher than the NanoDrop values. Electrophoresis with SYBR Green I and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) quantification demonstrated that Trizol-DNA consisted mostly of non-fragmented ssDNA. Therefore, Qubit is not always the most accurate method for quantifying DNA available for PCR.

Indexed as

AnimalsBenzothiazolesCarcinoma, HepatocellularDiaminesDNAFixativesFluorescent DyesFormaldehydeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLiverLiver NeoplasmsOrganic ChemicalsParaffin EmbeddingQuinolinesRatsBenzothiazolesDiaminesDNAFixativesFluorescent DyesFormaldehydeOrganic ChemicalsQuinolinesSolutionsSYBR Green I

Identifiers

PMID26937682
PMCPMC4777359

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.