The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of four digital PCR platforms for accurate quantification of DNA copy number of a certified plasmid DNA reference material
Open accessAbstract
Digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) is a unique approach to measurement of the absolute copy number of target DNA without using external standards. However, the comparability of different dPCR platforms with respect to measurement of DNA copy number must be addressed before dPCR can be classified fundamentally as an absolute quantification technique. The comparability of four dPCR platforms with respect to accuracy and measurement uncertainty was investigated by using a certified plasmid reference material. Plasmid conformation was found to have a significant effect on droplet-based dPCR (QX100 and RainDrop) not shared with chip-based QuantStudio 12k or BioMark. The relative uncertainty of partition volume was determined to be 0.7%, 0.8%, 2.3% and 2.9% for BioMark, QX100, QuantStudio 12k and RainDrop, respectively. The measurements of the certified pNIM-001 plasmid made using the four dPCR platforms were corrected for partition volume and closely consistent with the certified value within the expended uncertainty. This demonstrated that the four dPCR platforms are of comparable effectiveness in quantifying DNA copy number. These findings provide an independent assessment of this method of determining DNA copy number when using different dPCR platforms and underline important factors that should be taken into consideration in the design of dPCR experiments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Vogelstein, B., & Kinzler, K. W. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.16.9236 · Cited by 1,770
Huggett, J. F., Foy, C. A., Benes, V., Emslie, K., Garson, J. A., Haynes, R., Hellemans, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R. D., Nolan, T., et al. (2013) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2013.206375 · Cited by 859
Dube, S., Qin, J., & Ramakrishnan, R. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002876 · Cited by 302
Weaver, S., Dube, S., Mir, A., Qin, J., Sun, G., Ramakrishnan, R., Jones, R. C., & Livak, K. J. (2010) · Methods · doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.01.003 · Cited by 220
Bhat, S., Herrmann, J., Armishaw, P., Corbisier, P., & Emslie, K. R. (2009) · Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · doi:10.1007/s00216-009-2729-5 · Cited by 218
Cited by
Quan, P.-L., Sauzade, M., & Brouzes, E. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18041271 · Cited by 664
Gorgannezhad, L., Umer, M., Islam, M. N., Nguyen, N.-T., & Shiddiky, M. J. A. (2018) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c8lc00100f · Cited by 312
Digital Assays Part I: Partitioning Statistics and Digital PCR
Basu, A. S. (2017) · SLAS Technology · doi:10.1177/2472630317705680 · Cited by 300
Digital PCR: From early developments to its future application in clinics
Trouchet, A., Gines, G., Benhaim, L., & Taly, V. (2025) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/d5lc00055f · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Dong, L., Meng, Y., Sui, Z., Wang, J., Wu, L., & Fu, B.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2015-08-25
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13174-13174
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2400568009
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of four digital PCR platforms for accurate quantification of DNA copy number of a certified plasmid DNA reference material. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/srep13174
- The paper
- Dong, L., Meng, Y., Sui, Z., Wang, J., Wu, L., & Fu, B. (2015). Comparison of four digital PCR platforms for accurate quantification of DNA copy number of a certified plasmid DNA reference material. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13174
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
