Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40715338›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Comparing the precision of two digital PCR applications for copy number comparisons in protists.

Megan Gross, Thorsten Stoeck, Quentin Mauvisseau, Audun Schrøder-Nielsen, Micah Dunthorn

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Megan GrossDepartment of Ecology, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau, Kaiserslautern, Germany. gross.megan@rptu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0433-5139
Thorsten StoeckDepartment of Ecology, Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau, Kaiserslautern, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5180-5659
Quentin MauvisseauNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1215-2987
Audun Schrøder-NielsenNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-5753-2721
Micah DunthornNatural History Museum, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1376-4109

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microorganisms play key roles in ecosystem functioning, making reliable methods for assessing their dynamics essential. Advances in molecular technologies now enable their quantification in environmental samples based on DNA marker genes. Among these, digital PCR has emerged as a powerful tool for detecting and quantifying organisms based on their gene copies, with numerous platforms that are currently available. However, these platforms differ in their underlying technologies, and comparative studies that evaluate the performance and reproducibility remain limited. Here we compared different platform parameters across the QX200 digital droplet PCR from Bio-Rad and the QIAcuity One nanoplate-based digital PCR from QIAGEN. We used synthetic oligonucleotides and DNA extracted from varying cell numbers of the ciliate Paramecium tetraurelia and additionally tested the impact of two restriction enzymes on gene copy number quantification. Both platforms demonstrated similar detection and quantification limits and yielded high precision across most analyses. We found a general tendency of higher precision using the HaeIII restriction enzyme instead of EcoRI, especially for the QX200 system. Gene copy number estimates from ciliate DNA were reproducible between platforms and showed a linear trend for an increasing number of cells for both platforms. These findings highlight the importance of cross-platform evaluations to ensure robust and reproducible gene copy number analysis in unicellular eukaryotes and support a potential broader application of digital PCR in environmental monitoring studies.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsGene DosagePolymerase Chain ReactionDNA, ProtozoanReproducibility of ResultsDNA, ProtozoanCopy numberddPCRndPCRPrecisionProtistsReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID40715338
PMCPMC12297429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.