An Efficient Method for the Assessment of DNA Quality of Archival Microdissected Specimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There will be an increasing need of methods for assessing the suitability of specimens for genetic-based assays as DNA markers become an integral part of molecular diagnosis. The targeting of specimens for specific analyses will require the ability to rapidly screen for DNA quality. Conventional methods such as Southern analysis and gene specific-polymerase chain reaction (PCR) often require quantities of material that represent a significant portion of the specimen, especially in microdissected samples. Here we describe a novel application of a commonly used PCR-based DNA-fingerprinting technology that requires minimal quantities of DNA to simultaneously assess multiple regions throughout the genome for DNA quality. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) PCR generates DNA fragments of a broad size range with the product size reflecting the degree of sample fragmentation. Fourteen DNA samples extracted from cells microdissected from seven formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded oral cancer biopsies were assessed for DNA quality using gene-specific PCR and RAPD-PCR. Although the more conventional assay required 2-ng DNA (or 300-cell equivalents) to examine DNA quality at a single locus, RAPD-PCR provided a more informative profile of DNA quality from the same microdissected archival specimens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".