Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29177703›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2018

Evaluation of four commercial quantitative real-time PCR kits with inhibited and degraded samples.

Amy S Holmes, Rachel Houston, Kyleen Elwick, David Gangitano, Sheree Hughes-Stamm

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Detecting DNA damage in stored blood samples.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy S HolmesDepartment of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77340, USA. aes049@shsu.edu.
Rachel HoustonDepartment of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77340, USA.
Kyleen ElwickDepartment of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77340, USA.
David GangitanoDepartment of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77340, USA.
Sheree Hughes-StammDepartment of Forensic Science, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, 77340, USA.
Sam Houston State University · US

Funding

National Institute of Justice 2015-R2-CX-0029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA quantification is a vital step in forensic DNA analysis to determine the optimal input amount for DNA typing. A quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay that can predict DNA degradation or inhibitors present in the sample prior to DNA amplification could aid forensic laboratories in creating a more streamlined and efficient workflow. This study compares the results from four commercial qPCR kits: (1) Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro Kit, (2) Quantifiler® Trio DNA Quantification Kit, (3) PowerQuant® System, and (4) InnoQuant® HY with high molecular weight DNA, low template samples, degraded samples, and DNA spiked with various inhibitors.The results of this study indicate that all kits were comparable in accurately predicting quantities of high quality DNA down to the sub-picogram level. However, the InnoQuant(R) HY kit showed the highest precision across the DNA concentration range tested in this study. In addition, all kits performed similarly with low concentrations of forensically relevant PCR inhibitors. However, in general, the Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro Kit was the most tolerant kit to inhibitors and provided the most accurate quantification results with higher concentrations of inhibitors (except with salt). PowerQuant® and InnoQuant® HY were the most sensitive to inhibitors, but they did indicate significant levels of PCR inhibition. When quantifying degraded samples, each kit provided different degradation indices (DI), with Investigator® Quantiplex® Pro indicating the largest DI and Quantifiler® Trio indicating the smallest DI. When the qPCR kits were paired with their respective STR kit to genotype highly degraded samples, the Investigator® 24plex QS and GlobalFiler® kits generated more complete profiles when the small target concentrations were used for calculating input amount.

Indexed as

DNA Degradation, NecroticDNA FingerprintingDNAHumansMicrosatellite RepeatsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionDNADegradation indexDNA quantificationForensic sciencePCR inhibitionQuantitative real-time PCR

Identifiers

PMID29177703
OpenAlexW2770308851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.