ArticleElectrophoresis2022
Isometric artifacts from polymerase chain reaction-massively parallel sequencing analysis of short tandem repeat loci: An emerging issue from a new technology?
Article in Electrophoresis, 2022. 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.
- Autosomal STR Markers for Forensic Genetics: Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions.Genes · 2026Review
- Review
- SNP analysis of challenging bone DNA samples using the HID-Ion AmpliSeq™ Identity Panel: facts and artefacts.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Isometric artifacts from polymerase chain reaction-massively parallel sequencing analysis of short tandem repeat loci: An emerging issue from a new technology?Electrophoresis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent introduction of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-massively parallel sequencing (MPS) technologies in forensics has changed the approach to allelic short tandem repeat (STR) typing because sequencing cloned PCR fragments enables alleles with identical molecular weights to be distinguished based on their nucleotide sequences. Therefore, because PCR fidelity mainly depends on template integrity, new technical issues could arise in the interpretation of the results obtained from the degraded samples. In this work, a set of DNA samples degraded in vitro was used to investigate whether PCR-MPS could generate "isometric drop-ins" (IDIs; i.e., molecular products having the same length as the original allele but with a different nucleotide sequence within the repeated units). The Precision ID GlobalFiler NGS STR panel kit was used to analyze 0.5 and 1 ng of mock samples in duplicate tests (for a total of 16 PCR-MPS analyses). As expected, several well-known PCR artifacts (such as allelic dropout, stutters above the threshold) were scored; 95 IDIs with an average occurrence of 5.9 IDIs per test (min: 1, max: 11) were scored as well. In total, IDIs represented one of the most frequent artifacts. The coverage of these IDIs reached up to 981 reads (median: 239 reads), and the ratios with the coverage of the original allele ranged from 0.069 to 7.285 (median: 0.221). In addition, approximately 5.2% of the IDIs showed coverage higher than that of the original allele. Molecular analysis of these artifacts showed that they were generated in 96.8% of cases through a single nucleotide change event, with the C > T transition being the most frequent (85.7%). Thus, in a forensic evaluation of evidence, IDIs may represent an actual issue, particularly when DNA mixtures need to be interpreted because they could mislead the operator regarding the number of contributors. Overall, the molecular features of the IDIs described in this work, as well as the performance of duplicate tests, may be useful tools for managing this new class of artifacts otherwise not detected by capillary electrophoresis technology.
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.