ArticleBioTechniques2025
Assessing the necessity of technical replicates in reverse transcription quantitative PCR.
Article in BioTechniques, 2025. 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.
- Timing for Intravenous Injection of Mesenchymal Stem Cells to Enhance Fracture Healing.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) is widely used for nucleic acid quantification. The use of technical triplicates in RT-qPCR aims to minimize variability and improve reliability but increases reagent consumption, labor, and time. This study systematically evaluates the necessity of technical replicates by analyzing 71,142 cycle threshold (Ct) values from 1,113 RT-qPCR runs across three instruments, two detection chemistries, and 30 operators. Variability within replicates was assessed using metrics such as the coefficient of variation (CV), while the impacts of operator expertise, detection chemistry, instrument calibration, and initial template concentration were explored. The findings challenge the assumption that variability increases at low template concentrations, revealing no correlation between Ct values and CV. While inexperienced operators exhibited slightly higher variability, their replicates were still consistent, with acceptable CVs and low outlier frequencies. Dye-based detection showed greater variability than probe-based. Time since calibration had negligible effects on replicate consistency. Notably, duplicate or single replicates sufficiently approximated triplicate means. These results challenge traditional assumptions about RT-qPCR variability and provide a data-driven framework for optimizing experimental design. This study offers potential for resource savings without compromising data quality, particularly in high-throughput applications or laboratories with limited funds. The data underlying this article are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15072870.
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.