Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28446770›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Instability of 8E5 calibration standard revealed by digital PCR risks inaccurate quantification of HIV DNA in clinical samples by qPCR.

Eloise Busby, Alexandra S Whale, R Bridget Ferns, Paul R Grant, Gary Morley, Jonathan Campbell, Carole A Foy, Eleni Nastouli, Jim F Huggett, Jeremy A Garson

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. How CD4Biomedicines · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Measuring the Success of HIV-1 Cure Strategies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Review
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Eloise BusbyMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK.
Alexandra S WhaleMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK.
R Bridget FernsDepartment of Infection, Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK.
Paul R GrantDepartment of Clinical Virology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and the UCL/UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Gary MorleyMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK.
Jonathan CampbellMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK.
Carole A FoyMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK.
Eleni NastouliDepartment of Clinical Virology, University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and the UCL/UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, London, UK.
Jim F HuggettMolecular and Cell Biology Team, LGC, Teddington, UK. jim.huggett@lgcgroup.com.
Jeremy A GarsonDepartment of Infection, Division of Infection and Immunity, University College London, London, UK. j.garson@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBInstitute of Child Health · INUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abtractEstablishing a cure for HIV is hindered by the persistence of latently infected cells which constitute the viral reservoir. Real-time qPCR, used for quantification of this reservoir by measuring HIV DNA, requires external calibration; a common choice of calibrator is the 8E5 cell line, which is assumed to be stable and to contain one HIV provirus per cell. In contrast, digital PCR requires no external calibration and potentially provides 'absolute' quantification. We compared the performance of qPCR and dPCR in quantifying HIV DNA in 18 patient samples. HIV DNA was detected in 18 by qPCR and in 15 by dPCR, the difference being due to the smaller sample volume analysed by dPCR. There was good quantitative correlation (R

Indexed as

Diagnostic ErrorsCalibrationCell LineDNA, ViralHIVHIV InfectionsHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionViral LoadDNA, Viral

Identifiers

PMID28446770
PMCPMC5430807
OpenAlexW2605390240

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.