Evaluation of bias associated with high-multiplex, target-specific pre-amplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a novel PCR-based pre-amplification (PreAmp) technology that can increase the abundance of over 350 target genes one million-fold. To assess potential bias introduced by PreAmp we utilized ERCC RNA reference standards, a model system that quantifies measurement error in RNA analysis. We assessed three types of bias: amplification bias, dynamic range bias and fold-change bias. We show that our PreAmp workflow introduces only minimal amplification and fold-change bias under stringent conditions. We do detect dynamic range bias if a target gene is highly abundant and PreAmp occurred for 16 or more PCR cycles; however, this type of bias is easily correctable. To assess PreAmp bias in a gene expression profiling experiment, we analyzed a panel of genes that are regulated during differentiation using the NTera2 stem cell model system. We find that results generated using PreAmp are similar to results obtained using standard qPCR (without the pre-amplification step). Importantly, PreAmp maintains patterns of gene expression changes across samples; the same biological insights would be derived from a PreAmp experiment as with a standard gene expression profiling experiment. We conclude that our PreAmp technology can facilitate analysis of extremely limited samples in gene expression quantification experiments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".