ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2017
HRM and SNaPshot as alternative forensic SNP genotyping methods.
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Forensic DNA phenotyping: a review on SNP panels, genotyping techniques, and prediction models.Forensic sciences research · 2025Review
- Article
- Statistical methods for discrimination of STR genotypes using high resolution melt curve data.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- On the Identification of Body Fluids and Tissues: A Crucial Link in the Investigation and Solution of Crime.Genes · 2021Review
- Genotyping genetic markers from LCN and degraded DNA by HRM and their application in hair shaft.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Article
- A rapid and accurate methylation-sensitive high-resolution melting analysis assay for the diagnosis of Prader Willi and Angelman patients.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been widely used in forensics for prediction of identity, biogeographical ancestry (BGA) and externally visible characteristics (EVCs). Single base extension (SBE) assays, most notably SNaPshot® (Thermo Fisher Scientific), are commonly used for forensic SNP genotyping as they can be employed on standard instrumentation in forensic laboratories (e.g. capillary electrophoresis). High resolution melt (HRM) analysis is an alternative method and is a simple, fast, single tube assay for low throughput SNP typing. This study compares HRM and SNaPshot®. HRM produced reproducible and concordant genotypes at 500 pg, however, difficulties were encountered when genotyping SNPs with high GC content in flanking regions and differentiating variants of symmetrical SNPs. SNaPshot® was reproducible at 100 pg and is less dependent on SNP choice. HRM has a shorter processing time in comparison to SNaPshot®, avoids post PCR contamination risk and has potential as a screening tool for many forensic applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28523436What 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.