Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32123808›Full record

ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2019

A comparison of unamplified and massively multiplexed PCR amplification for murine antibody repertoire sequencing.

Trisha A Rettig, Michael J Pecaut, Stephen K Chapes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Trisha A RettigDivision of Biology Kansas State University Manhattan Kansas.
Michael J PecautDivision of Biomedical Engineering Sciences (BMES) Loma Linda University Loma Linda California.
Stephen K ChapesDivision of Biology Kansas State University Manhattan Kansas.

Funding

Mentoring CoreP20GM103418 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI Douglas E Wright · 2012 to 2026
$63.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103418
6 · The paper itself

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 laboratory 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 variable (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

heavy chainhigh‐throughput sequencingimmunoglobulin genesmouserepSEQ

Identifiers

PMID32123808
PMCPMC6996338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.