ArticleGenomics & informatics2023
Comparison of digital PCR platforms using the molecular marker.
Article in Genomics & informatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital PCR Methods for Discovering Molecular Markers for Hanwoo Cattle Breed Genotyping.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Detection of resistance in Phytophthora infestans to the carboxylic acid amide (CAA) fungicides using digital droplet PCR.Pest management science · 2025Article
- Exploring vaginal microbiome: from traditional methods to metagenomic next-generation sequencing-a systematic review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Advancing Pathogen Identification: The Role of Digital PCR in Enhancing Diagnostic Power in Different Settings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assays of clinical diagnosis and species identification using molecular markers are performed according to a quantitative method in consideration of sensitivity, cost, speed, convenience, and specificity. However, typical polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay is difficult to quantify and have various limitations. In addition, to perform quantitative analysis with the quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) equipment, a standard curve or normalization using reference genes is essential. Within the last a decade, previous studies have reported that the digital PCR (dPCR) assay, a third-generation PCR, can be applied in various fields by overcoming the shortcomings of typical PCR and qRT-PCR assays. We selected Stilla Naica System (Stilla Technologies), Droplet Digital PCR Technology (Bio-Rad), and Lab on an Array Digital Real-Time PCR analyzer system (OPTOLANE) for comparative analysis among the various droplet digital PCR platforms currently in use commercially. Our previous study discovered a molecular marker that can distinguish Hanwoo species (Korean native cattle) using Hanwoo-specific genomic structural variation. Here, we report the pros and cons of the operation of each dPCR platform from various perspectives using this species identification marker. In conclusion, we hope that this study will help researchers to select suitable dPCR platforms according to their purpose and resources.
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.