ArticlePeerJ2022
Be aware of the allele-specific bias and compositional effects in multi-template PCR.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathogenic Characterization of a Novel G47R Transthyretin Mutation in Early-Onset Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- PCR bias impacts microbiome ecological analyses.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Cell-free DNA in sepsis: from molecular insights to clinical management.Military Medical Research · 2025Review
- Predicting sequence-specific amplification efficiency in multi-template PCR with deep learning.Nature communications · 2025Article
- PCR Bias Impacts Microbiome Ecological Analyses.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Optimizing genomic diversity assessments for conservation of Bromus auleticus (Trinius ex Nees) using individual and pooled sequencing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing of amplicon libraries is the most widespread and one of the most effective ways to study the taxonomic structure of microbial communities, even despite growing accessibility of whole metagenome sequencing. Due to the targeted amplification, the method provides unparalleled resolution of communities, but at the same time perturbs initial community structure thereby reducing data robustness and compromising downstream analyses. Experimental research of the perturbations is largely limited to comparative studies on different PCR protocols without considering other sources of experimental variation related to characteristics of the initial microbial composition itself. Here we analyse these sources and demonstrate how dramatically they effect the relative abundances of taxa during the PCR cycles. We developed the mathematical model of the PCR amplification assuming the heterogeneity of amplification efficiencies and considering the compositional nature of data. We designed the experiment-five consecutive amplicon cycles (22-26) with 12 replicates for one real human stool microbial sample-and estimated the dynamics of the microbial community in line with the model. We found the high heterogeneity in amplicon efficiencies of taxa that leads to the non-linear and substantial (up to fivefold) changes in relative abundances during PCR. The analysis of possible sources of heterogeneity revealed the significant association between amplicon efficiencies and the energy of secondary structures of the DNA templates. The result of our work highlights non-trivial changes in the dynamics of real-life microbial communities due to their compositional nature. Obtained effects are specific not only for amplicon libraries, but also for any studies of metagenome dynamics.
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.