Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36193189›Full record

ArticleFood control2022

Single and multi-laboratory validation of a droplet digital PCR method.

Francesco Gatto, Christian Savini, Maria Grazia Sacco, Daniela Vinciguerra, Gerhard Buttinger, Philippe Corbisier, Marco Mazzara, Hendrik Emons

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Digital PCR for the Authentication of KAMUTFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Francesco GattoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Christian SaviniEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Maria Grazia SaccoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Daniela VinciguerraEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Gerhard ButtingerEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Retieseweg 111, 2440, Geel, Belgium.
Philippe CorbisierEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Retieseweg 111, 2440, Geel, Belgium.
Marco MazzaraEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via Enrico Fermi 2749, 21027, Ispra, (VA), Italy.
Hendrik EmonsEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Retieseweg 111, 2440, Geel, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in the EU is subject to the provision of evidence of safety and of the availability of reliable analytical methods. These methods represent an essential tool for official laboratories to enforce a harmonised market control. Here the validation of droplet digital PCR (dPCR) methods has been performed for studying if the performance and acceptance parameters set by EU and other international guidelines for the analysis of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in food and feed are suitable and achievable also with such methods. The single-laboratory validation study showed that performance requirements set for GMO analysis by real time PCR can also be used to assess dPCR-based methods. Moreover, trueness and precision were assessed for both simplex and duplex formats in a multi-laboratory validation study organised according to international standards. Overall, the data on trueness, repeatability and reproducibility precision resulting from the collaborative study are satisfying the acceptance criteria for the respective parameters as stipulated in the EU and other international guidance such as the Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis and Sampling (CCMAS). For instance, the duplex droplet dPCR method for MON810 showed relative repeatability standard deviations from 1.8% to 15.7%, while the relative reproducibility standard deviation was found to be between 2.1% and 16.5% over the dynamic range studied. Moreover, the relative bias of the dPCR methods was well below 25% across the entire dynamic range. In addition, other aspects supporting the application of digital PCR for the control of GMOs on the market were experimentally assessed such as the conversion of the measurement results from copy number ratio to mass fraction, the influence of the DNA extraction step and of the ingredient content. It was found that the DNA extraction step added only a limited contribution to the variability of the measurement results under the studied conditions. The decreasing amount of the target ingredient content may decrease the level of precision of the method, although within the acceptance range of GMO performance parameters.

Indexed as

Digital PCRGenetically modified organismsPrecisionQuantificationTruenessValidation

Identifiers

PMID36193189
PMCPMC9231119

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.