Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37450440›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Droplet digital PCR versus real-time PCR for in-house validation of porcine detection and quantification protocol: An artificial recombinant plasmid approach.

Umi Nuraeni, Jekmal Malau, Retno Tri Astuti, Auraga Dewantoro, Dini Apriori, Evellin Dewi Lusiana, Bambang Prasetya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Umi NuraeniLaboratory of National Measurement Standards of Biology, The National Standard Agency of Indonesia (BSN), South Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia.
Jekmal MalauDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Science, Universitas Singaperbangsa Karawang, West Java, Indonesia.
Retno Tri AstutiDepartment of Fisheries Product Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Brawijaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Auraga DewantoroResearch Center for Genetic Engineering, The National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia (BRIN), Bogor, Indonesia.
Dini AprioriLaboratory of National Measurement Standards of Biology, The National Standard Agency of Indonesia (BSN), South Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia.
Evellin Dewi LusianaDepartment of Aquatic Resource Management, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Universitas Brawijaya, East Java, Indonesia.
Bambang PrasetyaResearch Center for Testing Technology and Standards, The National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia (BRIN), South Tangerang, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-4256-4192
University of Brawijaya · IDIndonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development · IDNational Research and Innovation Agency · IDUniversity of Singaperbangsa Karawang · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Authenticity and traceability are essential for modern food and medicine inspection, and reliable techniques are important for the trade of halal foods, which reach more than 20 percent of the world market. A sensitive and accurate porcine detection method is required to develop a conformity assessment system that includes laboratory testing for porcine-free certification. This study proposes a procedure that could be incorporated into the development of a standardized control and protocol for real-time PCR (qPCR) methods and their traceability using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). The design used a recombinant pUC57 plasmid as an amplification target to carry the 97 bp fragment of the porcine ATCB gene. The absolute quantification and linearity assessment showed high precision with R2 values of 0.9971 and 0.9998 for qPCR and ddPCR, respectively. In general, both methods showed comparable results in terms of linearity and detection limit. However, both limit of detection assessments showed high sensitivity, although ddPCR showed a slightly higher sensitivity than that of qPCR, especially at low DNA concentrations. Multiple-sample and inter-participatory testing evaluations revealed a high sensitivity, broad applicability, and robustness of the qPCR method. Therefore, we conclude that based on a recombinant plasmid analysis with a low quantity (less than five copy number), the digital PCR method produced more reliable results. These results could provide scientific information for regulatory authorities, especially those in Indonesia, to consider the development and formulation of a well-established qPCR protocol for porcine detection using expected DNA concentrations.

Indexed as

FoodAnimalsDNA PrimersPlasmidsReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySwineDNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID37450440
PMCPMC10348585
OpenAlexW4384304909

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.