ArticleScientific reports2017
Systematic comparison of two whole-genome amplification methods for targeted next-generation sequencing using frozen and FFPE normal and cancer tissues.
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 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.
- From Cell to Gene: Deciphering the Mechanism of Heart Failure With Single-Cell Sequencing.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- A primer-independent DNA polymerase-based method for competent whole-genome amplification of intermediate to high GC sequences.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Identification of carrier status of Xp22.31 microdeletions associated with X-linked ichthyosis at the single-cell level using haplotype linkage analysis by karyomapping.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
- Recent advances and application of whole genome amplification in molecular diagnosis and medicine.MedComm · 2022Review
- Integrated spatial analysis of gene mutation and gene expression for understanding tumor diversity in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- High-Resolution Copy Number Patterns From Clinically Relevant FFPE Material.Scientific reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sequencing key cancer-driver genes using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cancer tissues is becoming the standard for identifying the best treatment regimen. However, about 25% of all samples are rejected for genetic analyses for reasons that include too little tissue to extract enough high quality DNA. One way to overcome this is to do whole-genome amplification (WGA) in clinical samples, but only limited studies have tested different WGA methods in FFPE cancer specimens using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). We therefore tested the two most commonly used WGA methods, multiple displacement amplification (MDA-Qiagen REPLI-g kit) and the hybrid or modified PCR-based method (Sigma/Rubicon Genomics Inc. GenomePlex kit) in FFPE normal and tumor tissue specimens. For the normalized copy number analysis, the FFPE process caused none or very minimal bias. Variations in copy number were minimal in samples amplified using the GenomePlex kit, but they were statistically significantly higher in samples amplified using the REPLI-g kit. The pattern was similar for variant allele frequencies across the samples, which was minimal for the GenomePlex kit but highly variable for the REPLI-g kit. These findings suggest that each WGA method should be tested thoroughly before using it for clinical cancer samples.
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.