ArticlePloS one2018
Gaussian decomposition of high-resolution melt curve derivatives for measuring genome-editing efficiency.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assay for numerical and graphical detection of Native American mitochondrial haplogroup B with real-time PCR.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Enzymatic Synthesis of Vancomycin-Modified DNA.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- nanoDSF:Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Correction: Gaussian decomposition of high-resolution melt curve derivatives for measuring genome-editing efficiency.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We describe a method for measuring genome editing efficiency from in silico analysis of high-resolution melt curve data. The melt curve data derived from amplicons of genome-edited or unmodified target sites were processed to remove the background fluorescent signal emanating from free fluorophore and then corrected for temperature-dependent quenching of fluorescence of double-stranded DNA-bound fluorophore. Corrected data were normalized and numerically differentiated to obtain the first derivatives of the melt curves. These were then mathematically modeled as a sum or superposition of minimal number of Gaussian components. Using Gaussian parameters determined by modeling of melt curve derivatives of unedited samples, we were able to model melt curve derivatives from genetically altered target sites where the mutant population could be accommodated using an additional Gaussian component. From this, the proportion contributed by the mutant component in the target region amplicon could be accurately determined. Mutant component computations compared well with the mutant frequency determination from next generation sequencing data. The results were also consistent with our earlier studies that used difference curve areas from high-resolution melt curves for determining the efficiency of genome-editing reagents. The advantage of the described method is that it does not require calibration curves to estimate proportion of mutants in amplicons of genome-edited target sites.
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.