ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparing the precision of two digital PCR applications for copy number comparisons in protists.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- GC-rich regions affect amplification efficiency of neighboring amplicons in qPCR and digital PCR.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- From Gene Copies to Cell Numbers: Advancing Quantitative Approaches in Protistan Ecology Using Digital PCR.Molecular ecology resources · 2026Article
- Bio-Rad and QIAGEN digital PCR platforms provide equivalent quantification for wastewater-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Integrated Analysis of Polyphenol Oxidase Gene Expression and Enzymatic Activity in Purple-Fleshed Potatoes.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.