MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003547657 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111781

Transgene Detection by Digital Droplet PCR

2014· article· en· W2003547657 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dirk Moser, Luca Braga, Andrea Raso, Serena Zacchigna, Mauro Giacca, Perikles Simon

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWorld Anti-Doping Agency
KeywordsTransgeneDigital polymerase chain reactionComputational biologyBiologyPolymerase chain reactionGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Somatic gene therapy is a promising tool for the treatment of severe diseases. Because of its abuse potential for performance enhancement in sports, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) included the term 'gene doping' in the official list of banned substances and methods in 2004. Several nested PCR or qPCR-based strategies have been proposed that aim at detecting long-term presence of transgene in blood, but these strategies are hampered by technical limitations. We developed a digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) protocol for Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF1) detection and demonstrated its applicability monitoring 6 mice injected into skeletal muscle with AAV9-IGF1 elements and 2 controls over a 33-day period. A duplex ddPCR protocol for simultaneous detection of Insulin-Like Growth Factor 1 (IGF1) and Erythropoietin (EPO) transgenic elements was created. A new DNA extraction procedure with target-orientated usage of restriction enzymes including on-column DNA-digestion was established. In vivo data revealed that IGF1 transgenic elements could be reliably detected for a 33-day period in DNA extracted from whole blood. In vitro data indicated feasibility of IGF1 and EPO detection by duplex ddPCR with high reliability and sensitivity. On-column DNA-digestion allowed for significantly improved target detection in downstream PCR-based approaches. As ddPCR provides absolute quantification, it ensures excellent day-to-day reproducibility. Therefore, we expect this technique to be used in diagnosing and monitoring of viral and bacterial infection, in detecting mutated DNA sequences as well as profiling for the presence of foreign genetic material in elite athletes in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207