ArticleScientific reports2017
STR profiling and Copy Number Variation analysis on single, preserved cells using current Whole Genome Amplification methods.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical interpretation of cell-based non-invasive prenatal testing for monogenic disorders including repeat expansion disorders: potentials and pitfalls.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- Single-Circulating Tumor Cell Whole Genome Amplification to Unravel Cancer Heterogeneity and Actionable Biomarkers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Fifty Generations of Amitosis: Tracing Asymmetric Allele Segregation in Polyploid Cells with Single-Cell DNA Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Genome-wide haplotyping embryos developing from 0PN and 1PN zygotes increases transferrable embryos in PGT-M.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing interest in liquid biopsies for cancer research and cell-based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) invigorates the need for improved single cell analysis. In these applications, target cells are extremely rare and fragile in peripheral circulation, which makes the genetic analysis very challenging. To overcome these challenges, cell stabilization and unbiased whole genome amplification are required. This study investigates the performance of four WGA methods on single or a limited number of cells after 24 hour of Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT preservation. The suitability of the DNA, amplified with Ampli1, DOPlify, PicoPLEX and REPLI-g, was assessed for both short tandem repeat (STR) profiling and copy number variant (CNV) analysis after shallow whole genome massively parallel sequencing (MPS). Results demonstrate that Ampli1, DOPlify and PicoPLEX perform well for both applications, with some differences between the methods. Samples amplified with REPLI-g did not result in suitable STR or CNV profiles, indicating that this WGA method is not able to generate high quality DNA after Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT stabilization of the cells.
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.