Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37608114›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2023

Bacteria and Yeast Colony PCR.

Humberto Pereira, Paulo César Silva, Björn Johansson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Yeast Tools for Studying Type II Topoisomerases in Budding Yeast.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Humberto PereiraCBMA - Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Paulo César SilvaCBMA - Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Björn JohanssonCBMA - Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal. bjorn_johansson@bio.uminho.pt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The bacteria Escherichia coli and the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae are currently the two most important organisms in synthetic biology. E. coli is almost always used for fundamental DNA manipulation, while yeast is the simplest host system for studying eukaryotic gene expression and performing large-scale DNA assembly. Yeast expression studies may also require altering the chromosomal DNA by homologous recombination. All these studies require the verification of the expected DNA sequence, and the fastest method of screening is colony PCR, which is direct PCR of DNA in cells without prior DNA purification. Colony PCR is hampered by the difficulty of releasing DNA into the PCR mix and by the presence of PCR inhibitors. We hereby present one protocol for E. coli and two protocols for S. cerevisiae differing in efficiency and complexity as well as an overview of past and possible future developments of efficient S. cerevisiae colony PCR protocols.

Indexed as

Escherichia coliSaccharomyces cerevisiaeBacteriaEukaryotic CellsPolymerase Chain ReactionColonyDirect lysisEscherichia coliPCRSaccharomyces cerevisiaeYeast

Identifiers

PMID37608114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.