ArticleViruses2022
Comparison of Quantitative Real-Time PCR and Digital PCR to Detect the Polyomavirus in Merkel Cell Carcinoma.
Article in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polyomaviruses and the risk of oral cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Merkel cell carcinoma of the parotid gland: a rare case report and literature review.International journal of surgery case reports · 2025Article
- Digital PCR in Virology: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) prevalence in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) cases is controversial. The detection and quantification of MCPyV DNA is mainly performed by PCR techniques using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. The aim of this study is to compare the performance of two different molecular techniques, specifically the quantitative Real-Time PCR (qPCR) and digital PCR (dPCR). Samples from 31 cases of MCC excisional surgical biopsies were analyzed. DNA extraction and purification from clinical samples were performed using the QIAcube Qiagen automated nucleic acid extractor. After the extraction, MCPyV was detected by qPCR and dPCR using specially designed primers and probes. Of the 31 MCC samples under study, the MCPyV genome was detected in 11 samples (35%) by qPCR compared with 20 samples (65%) detected by dPCR. Notably, 65% of primary tumors were positive for MCPyV (15/23). The viral genome was detected in 75% of tumors located at UV-exposed sites (6/8), 55% of tumors at partially UV-protected sites (5/9), and 67% of tumors at UV-protected sites (4/6). Our results showed a better sensitivity of dPCR in detecting the MCPyV genome in MCC samples compared with traditional qPCR techniques.
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.