ArticlePloS one2025
Exploration of different quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based genotyping methods to distinguish Apcmin/+ mice from wildtype mice.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various molecular methods have been established for genotyping single-nucleotide variants (SNVs). However, despite the widespread availability of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) instruments in biomedical laboratories, the lack of professional analytical tools impedes the application of qPCR in genotyping. Apcmin/+ mice, which harbour a germline Apc mutation (g.2549T>A) associated with multiple intestinal neoplasms, are extensively employed in colorectal cancer research. In this study, we used Apc as a model and assessed the feasibility of different qPCR-based methods for SNV genotyping, considering approaches with and without genotyping analytical tools. We initially employed allele-specific PCR followed by electrophoresis to determine the genotypes of Apc in tail tissues from potential Apcmin/+ mice, and this method served as the benchmark for evaluating the performance of qPCR-based methods. Dye-based qPCR and melting curve assays exhibited distinct dissociation patterns that differentiated between synthesised wildtype (TT) and heterozygous mutant (TA) DNA and between TT and TA genotype mice based on analysis of tissue samples. This discrimination ability of these assays was unaffected by the use of different intercalating dyes (SYBR Green I or EvaGreen). Dual-probe qPCR assays were developed to simultaneously detect mutant and wildtype alleles using differently labelled probes. The genotyping module and delta cycle threshold method were used to facilitate the analysis of results. The qPCR-based methods displayed 100% agreement with the standard genotyping outcomes. When the PCR-electrophoresis method was used, approximately 15% of the samples required re-examination to obtain conclusive results. In contrast, when the qPCR methods were used, success rates exceeding 99% were achieved with a single test. Additionally, all qPCR-based methods determined mouse genotypes by analysis of stool samples, highlighting the applicability of these methods for non-invasive genotyping. Loss of heterozygosity in the Apc gene in intestinal polyps was detected using the dual-probe assay with delta cycle threshold method. In summary, this study successfully implemented intercalator-based and probe-based qPCR methods, with and without professional analytical modules, for characterising Apc in tissue and stool samples. Furthermore, these methods can be extended to allow genotyping of other SNVs and can facilitate non-invasive genotyping of transgenic animals.
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.