ArticlePeerJ2025
Assessing reliability and accuracy of qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR for estimating mitochondrial DNA copy number in songbird blood and sperm cells.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sperm mitochondrial DNA copy number: a marker of male fertility and reproductive success.Human reproduction update · 2026Review
- From Gene Copies to Cell Numbers: Advancing Quantitative Approaches in Protistan Ecology Using Digital PCR.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Molecular Identification and RNA-Based Management of Fungal Plant Pathogens: From PCR to CRISPR/Cas9.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Establishing a Detection Method Based on Multiplex PCR for Identification of Sheep Meat, Goat Meat and Common Adulterant Meats.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparing the precision of two digital PCR applications for copy number comparisons in protists.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sperm mtDNA Copy Number Is Not Associated With Midpiece Size Among Songbirds.Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number varies across species, individuals, and cell types. In birds, there are two types of cells with a relatively low number of mitochondria: red blood cells and spermatozoa. Previous studies investigating variation of mitochondrial abundance in animal sperm have generally used quantitative PCR (qPCR), but this method shows potential limitations when quantifying targets at low abundance. To mitigate such issues, we investigated and compared the reliability and accuracy of qPCR, digital PCR (dPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to quantify high and low concentration DNA. We used synthetic DNA targets, to calculate the limit of detection and the limit of quantification and found that with both dPCR and ddPCR, these limits were lower than with qPCR. Then, to compare quantification accuracy and repeatability, we used DNA extracted from blood and sperm cells of Eurasian siskin. We found that qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR all reliably quantified mitochondrial DNA in sperm samples but showed significant differences when analyzing the typically lower levels of mtDNA in blood, with ddPCR consistently showing lower variation among replicates. Our study provides critical insights and recommendations for future studies aiming to quantify target mtDNA and indicates that dPCR and ddPCR are the preferred methods when working with samples with low abundance of mtDNA.
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.