ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2018
Comparison between magnetic bead and qPCR library normalisation methods for forensic MPS genotyping.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peripheral blood to next-generation sequencing ready DNA library: a novel engineering design for automation.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Library Preparation Workflows and Applications to Different Sample Types Using the PowerSeqGenes · 2023Article
- The forensic landscape and the population genetic analyses of Hainan Li based on massively parallel sequencing DNA profiling.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of gut microbiota in autism spectrum disorders and neurotypical boys in China: A case-control study.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2021Article
- Massively parallel sequencing techniques for forensics: A review.Electrophoresis · 2018Review
- Quantification of massively parallel sequencing libraries - a comparative study of eight methods.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) is fast approaching operational use in forensic science, with the capability to analyse hundreds of DNA identity and DNA intelligence markers in multiple samples simultaneously. The ForenSeq™ DNA Signature Kit on MiSeq FGx™ (Illumina) workflow can provide profiles for autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs), X chromosome and Y chromosome STRs, identity single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), biogeographical ancestry SNPs and phenotype (eye and hair colour) SNPs from a sample. The library preparation procedure involves a series of steps including target amplification, library purification and library normalisation. This study highlights the comparison between the manufacturer recommended magnetic bead normalisation and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods. Furthermore, two qPCR chemistries, KAPA® (KAPA Biosystems) and NEBNext® (New England Bio Inc.), have also been compared. The qPCR outperformed the bead normalisation method, while the NEBNext® kit obtained higher genotype concordance than KAPA®. The study also established an MPS workflow that can be utilised in any operational forensic laboratory.
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.