MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013727620 · doi:10.2144/000113369

Improving Sequencing Quality from PCR Products Containing Long Mononucleotide Repeats

2010· article· en· W2013727620 on OpenAlexafffund
Aron J. Fazekas, Royce Steeves, Steven G. Newmaster

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of GuelphOntario Genomics InstituteGenome Canada
KeywordsProofreadingBiologyGeneticsPolymeraseDNA polymeraseDNAPolymerase chain reactionSequence (biology)NucleotideMicrosatelliteComputational biologyMolecular biologyAlleleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stutter products are a common artifact in the PCR amplification of frequently used genetic markers that contain mononucleotide simple sequence repeats. Despite the importance of accurate determination of nucleotide sequence and allele size, there has been little progress toward decreasing the formation of stutter products during PCR. In this study, we tested the effects of lowered extension temperatures, inclusion of co-solutes in PCR, PCR cycle number, and the use of different polymerases on sequence quality for a set of sequences containing mononucleotide A/T repeats of 10–17 bp. Our analyses showed that sequence quality of mononucleotide repeats ≤15 bp is greatly improved with the use of proofreading DNA polymerases fused to nonspecific dsDNA binding domains. Our findings also suggest that the number of nucleotides with which the DNA polymerase interacts may be the most important factor in the reduction of slipped-strand mispairings in vitro.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations119
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioTechniquesSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207