ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2019
A comparison of unamplified and massively multiplexed PCR amplification for murine antibody repertoire sequencing.
Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Sequencing antibody repertoires has steadily become cheaper and easier. Sequencing methods usually rely on some form of amplification, often a massively multiplexed PCR prior to sequencing. To eliminate potential biases and create a data set that could be used for other studies, our lab compared unamplified sequencing results from the splenic heavy-chain repertoire in the mouse to those processed through two commercial applications. We also compared the use of mRNA vs total RNA, reverse transcriptase, and primer usage for cDNA synthesis and submission. The use of mRNA for cDNA synthesis resulted in higher read counts but reverse transcriptase and primer usage had no statistical effects on read count. Although most of the amplified data sets contained more antibody reads than the unamplified data set, we detected more unique V-gene segments in the unamplified data set. Although unique CDR3 detection was much lower in the unamplified data set, RNASeq detected 98% of the high frequency CDR3s. We have shown that unamplified profiling of the antibody repertoire is possible, detects more V-gene segments, and detects high frequency clones in the repertoire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30740592PMC6366624W2927092457What 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.