ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2018
Characteristic and influencing factors of Taqman genotyping calling error.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- A novel Dual-guide CRISPR-Cas13 strategy improves specificity for single-nucleotide variant detection.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Intergenic Variants Upstream of GADD45b Affect Survival ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Characteristic and influencing factors of Taqman genotyping calling error.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTaqman fluorescent probe was frequently applied in single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping. However, the characteristic of calling error and the influencing factors remain unclear.
methodCalling errors of Taqman genotyping was evaluated systematically based on Mendelian inheritance. Twenty-two SNPs were genotyped by Taqman probe for 419 pedigrees. Mendelian genetic errors were counted for every SNP and pedigree. Cluster analysis was applied to investigate the compatibility between Taqman probes and DNA sample.
resultsOn one hand, errors were found for all the SNPs. The error number ranged from 4 to 33 with median of 10.5. On the other hand, Mendelian genetic errors showed features of both randomness and cluster. Half of the pedigrees containing errors had only 1 Mendelian genetic error. But there was also a pedigree containing up to 10 Mendelian genetic errors. Furthermore, cluster analysis indicated that errors of different SNPs took place in different pedigree cluster.
conclusionIt could be concluded that calling error is inevitable for Taqman genotyping of large samples. The quality of Taqman probe and DNA sample, as well as their compatibility, may account for the error incidence.
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.