MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167501668 · doi:10.2144/000114087

Optimizing methodologies for PCR-based DNA methylation analysis

2013· review· en· W2167501668 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioTechniques · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsHigh Resolution MeltDNA methylationMethylationComputational biologyBisulfite sequencingBiologyIllumina Methylation AssayBisulfiteGeneticsPolymerase chain reactionDNAMolecular biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comprehensive analysis of DNA methylation patterns is critical for understanding the molecular basis of many human diseases. While hundreds of PCR-based DNA methylation studies are published every year, the selection and implementation of appropriate methods for these studies can be challenging for molecular genetics researchers not yet familiar with methylation analysis. Here we review the most commonly used PCR-based DNA methylation analysis techniques: bisulfite sequencing PCR (BSP), methylation specific PCR (MSP), MethyLight, and methylation-sensitive high resolution melting (MS-HRM). We provide critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach as well as a series of guidelines to assist in selecting and implementing an appropriate method.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.269 · 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