Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28683077›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

DNA isolation protocol effects on nuclear DNA analysis by microarrays, droplet digital PCR, and whole genome sequencing, and on mitochondrial DNA copy number estimation.

Elizabeth Nacheva, Katya Mokretar, Aynur Soenmez, Alan M Pittman, Colin Grace, Roberto Valli, Ayesha Ejaz, Selina Vattathil, Emanuela Maserati, Henry Houlden and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. DNA Isolation Long-Read Genomic Sequencing in Ctenophores.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Elizabeth NachevaAcademic Haematology, Royal Free Campus, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Katya MokretarAcademic Haematology, Royal Free Campus, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aynur SoenmezClinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alan M PittmanMolecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Colin GraceAcademic Haematology, Royal Free Campus, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Roberto ValliDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università dell'Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Ayesha EjazClinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Selina VattathilDepartment of Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Emanuela MaseratiDipartimento di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università dell'Insubria, Varese, Italy.
Henry HouldenMolecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jan-Willem TaanmanClinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anthony H SchapiraClinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Christos ProukakisClinical Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6423-6539
University College London · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity of Insubria · ITThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802760Medical Research Council G1001253Medical Research Council G108/638Medical Research Council MR/J004758/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Potential bias introduced during DNA isolation is inadequately explored, although it could have significant impact on downstream analysis. To investigate this in human brain, we isolated DNA from cerebellum and frontal cortex using spin columns under different conditions, and salting-out. We first analysed DNA using array CGH, which revealed a striking wave pattern suggesting primarily GC-rich cerebellar losses, even against matched frontal cortex DNA, with a similar pattern on a SNP array. The aCGH changes varied with the isolation protocol. Droplet digital PCR of two genes also showed protocol-dependent losses. Whole genome sequencing showed GC-dependent variation in coverage with spin column isolation from cerebellum. We also extracted and sequenced DNA from substantia nigra using salting-out and phenol / chloroform. The mtDNA copy number, assessed by reads mapping to the mitochondrial genome, was higher in substantia nigra when using phenol / chloroform. We thus provide evidence for significant method-dependent bias in DNA isolation from human brain, as reported in rat tissues. This may contribute to array "waves", and could affect copy number determination, particularly if mosaicism is being sought, and sequencing coverage. Variations in isolation protocol may also affect apparent mtDNA abundance.

Indexed as

Brain ChemistryDNA Copy Number VariationsGenome, HumanAgedAged, 80 and overAutopsyBase CompositionCase-Control StudiesCell NucleusCerebellumComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA, MitochondrialFemaleFrontal LobeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansDNA, Mitochondrial

Identifiers

PMID28683077
PMCPMC5500342
OpenAlexW2953216728

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.