ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
When Two-Fold Is Not Enough: Quantifying Uncertainty in Low-Copy qPCR.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Exploratory small RNA sequencing of human placental miRNAs identifies candidates associated with congenital transmission of Trypanosoma cruzi.Research square · 2026Article
- Cave microbial communities are structured by environmental matrix and depth and can be characterized with field-portable assays.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Inflammasome-associated pyroptosis and tumor angiogenesis in prostate cancer.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Analyzing qPCR data: Better practices to facilitate rigor and reproducibility.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 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
Accurate interpretation of qPCR data continues to present significant challenges, particularly at low target concentrations where technical variability, stochastic amplification, and efficiency fluctuations confound quantification. The widespread assumption that qPCR outputs are intrinsically reliable, coupled with inconsistent adherence to best-practice guidelines, has exacerbated issues of reproducibility and contributed to misleading conclusions. This may distort pathogen load quantification in diagnostic settings, whilst in gene expression studies, it can lead to overinterpretation of small fold changes. This study presents a systematic, cross-platform evaluation of qPCR performance across a wide dynamic range using defined reaction mixes and technical replicates. We show that calculated copy numbers can closely match expected values over more than three orders of magnitude, but that variability increases markedly at low input concentrations, often exceeding the magnitude of biologically meaningful differences. We conclude that establishing and reporting confidence intervals from the data itself is essential for transparency and for distinguishing reliable quantification from technical noise.
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.