ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024
Identification and optimization of parameters for accurate quantification of RNA by RT-dPCR.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Angelicin Inhibits NSCLC Tumor Growth via the Inhibition of Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts.Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reverse transcription-digital PCR (RT-dPCR) is attracting attention as a method that enables SI-traceable RNA quantification without calibration, but its accuracy and bias have not been thoroughly studied. In this study, the accurate quantification of RNA by the RT-dPCR method was investigated using NMIJ CRM 6204-b, an RNA certified reference material whose certified value was assigned by orthogonal chemical measurement methods. Moreover, a two-step RT-dPCR method was adopted to examine in detail the conditions for the RT reaction process, which was expected to be the major uncertainty component in the RT-dPCR measurement. Optimization experiments revealed that the type of reverse transcriptase, the concentration of template RNA, and the type and concentration of primers in the RT reaction affected the value quantified by RT-dPCR. Under the optimal conditions, the value quantified by RT-dPCR, 76.4 ng/μL ± 6.7 ng/μL (the quantified value ± expanded uncertainty (k = 2)), was consistent with the certified value, 68.2 ng/μL ± 5.8 ng/μL, of NMIJ CRM 6204-b RNA 1000-A within the expanded uncertainty. From the results of the uncertainty evaluation, the relative combined uncertainty of the RT-dPCR method was 4.42%, and the major uncertainty components in the RT-dPCR method were the preparation of RT solution (3.68%), the inter-day difference (1.80%), and the RT reaction (1.30%). Together, the results suggested that the contribution of the RT reaction process to the total uncertainty was greater than that of the dPCR process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39046502What 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.