ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019
The QIAGEN 140-locus single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel for forensic identification using massively parallel sequencing (MPS): an evaluation and a direct-to-PCR trial.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complex kinship testing using the MGIEasy Pa-SNPs genotyping kit.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Forensic genetic analysis of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and microhaplotypes in Koreans through next-generation sequencing using precision ID identity panel.Genes & genomics · 2023Article
- Recent advances in forensic biology and forensic DNA typing: INTERPOL review 2019-2022.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2023Article
- A novel computational strategy to predict the value of the evidence in the SNP-based forensic mixtures.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Massive parallel sequencing in forensics: advantages, issues, technicalities, and prospects.International journal of legal medicine · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of identity informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (IISNPs) enables hundreds of forensically relevant markers to be analysed simultaneously. Generating DNA sequence data enables more detailed analysis including identification of sequence variations between individuals. The GeneRead DNAseq 140 IISNP MPS panel (QIAGEN) has been evaluated on both the MiSeq (Illumina) and Ion PGM™ (Applied Biosystems) MPS platforms using the GeneRead DNAseq Targeted Panels V2 library preparation workflow (QIAGEN). The aims of this study were to (1) determine if the GeneRead DNAseq panel is effective for identity testing by assessing deviation from Hardy-Weinberg (HWE) and pairwise linkage equilibrium (LE); (2) sequence samples with the GeneRead DNAseq panel on the Ion PGM™ using the QIAGEN workflow and assess specificity, sensitivity and accuracy; (3) assess the efficacy of adding biological samples directly to the GeneRead DNAseq PCR, without prior DNA extraction; and (4) assess the effect of varying coverage and allele frequency thresholds on genotype concordance. Analyses of the 140 SNPs for HWE and LE using Fisher's exact tests and the sequential Bonferroni correction revealed that one SNP was out of HWE in the Japanese population and five SNP combinations were commonly out of LE in 13 of 14 populations. The panel was sensitive down to 0.3125 ng of DNA input. A direct-to-PCR approach (without DNA extraction) produced highly concordant genotypes. The setting of appropriate allele frequency thresholds is more effective for reducing erroneous genotypes than coverage thresholds.
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.