Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610698›Full record

ArticleMicromachines2020

Comparison of Multiple Displacement Amplification (MDA) and Multiple Annealing and Looping-Based Amplification Cycles (MALBAC) in Limited DNA Sequencing Based on Tube and Droplet.

Xiaoxiang Zhou, Ying Xu, Libo Zhu, Zhen Su, Xiaoming Han, Zhen Zhang, Yan Huang, Quanjun Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Micromachines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Recent Advances in Methods for Circulating Tumor Cell Detection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Characterization ofFrontiers in genetics · 2021
    Article
  19. 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

8 authors.

Xiaoxiang ZhouState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Ying XuState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Libo ZhuState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Zhen SuState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Xiaoming HanState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Zhen ZhangState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Yan HuangState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.
Quanjun LiuState Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, No. 2, Sipailou, Nanjing 210096, China.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China 2016YFA0501600National Key Research and Development Program of China 2017YFC0906503National Natural Science Foundation of China 31872726National Natural Science Foundation of China 61827814Program of Shenzhen Knowledage Innovation JCYJ20170817164740197
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole genome amplification (WGA) is crucial for whole genome sequencing to investigate complex genomic alteration at the single-cell or even single-molecule level. Multiple displacement amplification (MDA) and multiple annealing and looping based amplification cycles (MALBAC) are two most widely applied WGA methods, which have different advantages and disadvantages, dependent on research objectives. Herein, we compared the MDA and MALBAC to provide more information on their performance in droplets and tubes. We observed that the droplet method could dramatically reduce the amplification bias and retain the high accuracy of replication than the conventional tube method. Furthermore, the droplet method exhibited higher efficiency and sensitivity for both homozygous and heterozygous single nucleotide variants (SNVs) at the low sequencing depth. In addition, we also found that MALBAC offered a greater uniformity and reproducibility and MDA showed a better efficiency of genomic coverage and SNV detection. Our results provided insights that will allow future decision making.

Indexed as

dropletsmultiple annealing and looping based amplification cyclesmultiple displacement amplificationwhole genome amplification

Identifiers

PMID32610698
PMCPMC7407204

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.