ArticleScientific reports2016
Accurate quantification of supercoiled DNA by digital PCR.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A method to validate viral copy-number assay involving a hybrid amplicon and duplex droplet digital PCR.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2025Article
- Harnessing ctDNA in Advanced Melanoma: A Promising Tool for Informed Clinical Decisions.Cancers · 2024Review
- Circulating tumor DNA: current challenges for clinical utility.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Review
- Investigation of direct counting and sizing of DNA fragments in flow applying an improved data analysis and correction method.Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2019Article
- Molecular and Immnune Diagnosis: Further Testing for Human Strongyloidiasis.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digital PCR (dPCR) as an enumeration-based quantification method is capable of quantifying the DNA copy number without the help of standards. However, it can generate false results when the PCR conditions are not optimized. A recent international comparison (CCQM P154) showed that most laboratories significantly underestimated the concentration of supercoiled plasmid DNA by dPCR. Mostly, supercoiled DNAs are linearized before dPCR to avoid such underestimations. The present study was conducted to overcome this problem. In the bilateral comparison, the National Institute of Metrology, China (NIM) optimized and applied dPCR for supercoiled DNA determination, whereas Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS) prepared the unknown samples and quantified them by flow cytometry. In this study, several factors like selection of the PCR master mix, the fluorescent label, and the position of the primers were evaluated for quantifying supercoiled DNA by dPCR. This work confirmed that a 16S PCR master mix avoided poor amplification of the supercoiled DNA, whereas HEX labels on dPCR probe resulted in robust amplification curves. Optimizing the dPCR assay based on these two observations resulted in accurate quantification of supercoiled DNA without preanalytical linearization. This result was validated in close agreement (101~113%) with the result from flow cytometry.
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.