ArticleCells2025
Multiplexed Digital PCR Reference Gene Measurement for Genomic and Cell-Free DNA Analysis.
Article in Cells, 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.
- New Candidate Reference Measurement Procedures for MET CNV Detection and Quantification Using Digital PCR.Biological procedures online · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Precision medicine approaches rely on accurate somatic variant detection, where the DNA input into genomic workflows is a key variable. However, there are no gold standard methods for total DNA quantification. In this study, a pentaplex reference gene panel using digital PCR (dPCR) was developed as a candidate reference method. The multiplex approach was compared between two assay chemistries, applied to healthy donor genomic DNA and plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) to measure the ERBB2 (HER2) copy number variation in cancer cell line DNA. The multiplex approach demonstrated robust performance with the two assay chemistries, demonstrating comparable results and a wide dynamic range. Ratios of reference genes were close to the expected 1:1 in healthy samples; however, some small but significant differences (<1.2-fold) were observed in one of the five targets. Expanded relative measurement uncertainty was 12.1-19.8% for healthy gDNA and 9.2-25.2% for cfDNA. The multiplex approach afforded lower measurement uncertainty compared to the use of a single reference for total DNA quantification, which is an advantage for its potential use as a calibration method. It avoided potential biases in the application to CNV quantification of cancer samples, where cancer genome instability may be prominent.
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.