ArticleBioscience reports2017
The comparison of the performance of four whole genome amplification kits on ion proton platform in copy number variation detection.
Article in Bioscience reports, 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.
- Single-cell genome and transcriptome sequencing without upfront whole-genome amplification reveals cell state plasticity of melanoma subclones.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Chromosome instability and aneuploidy in the mammalian brain.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2023Review
- Limitations of gene editing assessments in human preimplantation embryos.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Single-cell sequencing of the small and AT-skewed genome of malaria parasites.Genome medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Utility of Plasmodium falciparum DNA from rapid diagnostic test kits for molecular analysis and whole genome amplification.Malaria journal · 2020Article
- Comparison of single cell sequencing data between two whole genome amplification methods on two sequencing platforms.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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the development and clinical application of genomics, more and more concern is focused on single-cell sequencing. In the process of single-cell sequencing, whole genome amplification is a key step to enrich sample DNA. Previous studies have compared the performance of different whole genome amplification (WGA) strategies on Illumina sequencing platforms, but there is no related research aimed at Ion Proton platform, which is also a popular next-generation sequencing platform. Here by amplifying cells from six cell lines with different karyotypes, we estimated the data features of four common commercial WGA kits (PicoPLEX WGA Kit, GenomePlex Single Cell Whole Genome Amplification Kit, MALBAC Single Cell Whole Genome Amplification Kit, and REPLI-g Single Cell Kit), including median absolute pairwise difference, uniformity, reproducibility, and fidelity, and examined their performance of copy number variation detection. The results showed that both MALBAC and PicoPLEX could yield high-quality data and had high reproducibility and fidelity; and as for uniformity, PicoPLEX was slightly superior to MALBAC.
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.