MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004497203 · doi:10.2298/abs1203865s

Dimethyl sulfoxide improves sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR and qRT-PCR amplification of low-expressed transgenes

2012· article· en· W2004497203 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Simonović, Milana Trifunović‐Momčilov, Martin Raspor, Aleksandar Cingel, Milica Bogdanović, Milan Dragićević, Angelina Subotić

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Biological Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersFreie Universität Berlin
KeywordsDimethyl sulfoxideEthylene glycolMolecular biologyFormamideGlycerolTransgeneChemistryBiochemistryEnhancerBiologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expression of transgenes in a host plant may be low for a number of reasons. Both low expression and poor specificity of amplification were encountered during analysis of the expression of the Arabidopsis cytokinin oxidase/dehydrogenase (AtCKX1) gene in transgenic Centaurium erythraea. The optimization of the PCR protocol involved a gradient of annealing temperatures, as well as the application of seven PCR enhancers: formamide, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), glycerol, ethylene glycol, trehalose, BSA and Tween-20. The best results for AtCKX1 amplification were obtained at 55.1?C, with the addition of 5% DMSO. Glycerol and trehalose also improved the sensitivity of amplification, while formamide, ethylene glycol and BSA enhanced only the amplification of control purified targets, but not the transcripts. Tween-20 inhibited PCR. DMSO enhanced AtCKX1 PCR amplification and improved the specificity of qPCR amplification, as well as the assay reproducibility. This work emphasizes the usefulness of additives, which are rarely used for PCR optimization in real-time 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 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

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 studies0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Biological SciencesSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207