Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28060945›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Examining Sources of Error in PCR by Single-Molecule Sequencing.

Vladimir Potapov, Jennifer L Ong

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 179 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
179citing 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

179 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Molecular epidemiology and genotype diversity of Dientamoeba fragilis in a Czech hospital-based cohort: higher prevalence in paediatric patients and evidence of mixed G1/G2 infection in a single patient.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Vladimir PotapovNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Jennifer L OngNew England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-7472

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technology has enabled the detection of rare genetic or somatic mutations and contributed to our understanding of disease progression and evolution. However, many next-generation sequencing technologies first rely on DNA amplification, via the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), as part of sample preparation workflows. Mistakes made during PCR appear in sequencing data and contribute to false mutations that can ultimately confound genetic analysis. In this report, a single-molecule sequencing assay was used to comprehensively catalog the different types of errors introduced during PCR, including polymerase misincorporation, structure-induced template-switching, PCR-mediated recombination and DNA damage. In addition to well-characterized polymerase base substitution errors, other sources of error were found to be equally prevalent. PCR-mediated recombination by Taq polymerase was observed at the single-molecule level, and surprisingly found to occur as frequently as polymerase base substitution errors, suggesting it may be an underappreciated source of error for multiplex amplification reactions. Inverted repeat structural elements in lacZ caused polymerase template-switching between the top and bottom strands during replication and the frequency of these events were measured for different polymerases. For very accurate polymerases, DNA damage introduced during temperature cycling, and not polymerase base substitution errors, appeared to be the major contributor toward mutations occurring in amplification products. In total, we analyzed PCR products at the single-molecule level and present here a more complete picture of the types of mistakes that occur during DNA amplification.

Identifiers

PMID28060945
PMCPMC5218489

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.