ArticlePloS one2024
Amplified DNA heterogeneity assessment with Oxford Nanopore sequencing applied to cell free expression templates.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Read-Level Error Characterization of Rolling-Circle Amplification-Based Nanopore Sequencing of the Circular DNA Virome.Viruses · 2026Article
- Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Probes for Protease Characterization Directly in Cell-Free Expression Reactions.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Probes for Protease Characterization Directly in Cell-Free Expression Reactions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this work, Oxford Nanopore sequencing is tested as an accessible method for quantifying heterogeneity of amplified DNA. This method enables rapid quantification of deletions, insertions, and substitutions, the probability of each mutation error, and their locations in the replicated sequences. Amplification techniques tested were conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with varying levels of polymerase fidelity (OneTaq, Phusion, and Q5) as well as rolling circle amplification (RCA) with Phi29 polymerase. Plasmid amplification using bacteria was also assessed. By analyzing the distribution of errors in a large set of sequences for each sample, we examined the heterogeneity and mode of errors in each sample. This analysis revealed that Q5 and Phusion polymerases exhibited the lowest error rates observed in the amplified DNA. As a secondary validation, we analyzed the emission spectra of sfGFP fluorescent proteins synthesized with amplified DNA using cell free expression. Error-prone polymerase chain reactions confirmed the dependency of reporter protein emission spectra peak broadness to DNA error rates. The presented nanopore sequencing methods serve as a roadmap to quantify the accuracy of other gene amplification techniques, as they are discovered, enabling more homogenous cell-free expression of desired proteins.
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.