The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiplex digital PCR: breaking the one target per color barrier of quantitative PCR
Abstract
Quantitative polymerase chain reactions (qPCR) based on real-time PCR constitute a powerful and sensitive method for the analysis of nucleic acids. However, in qPCR, the ability to multiplex targets using differently colored fluorescent probes is typically limited to 4-fold by the spectral overlap of the fluorophores. Furthermore, multiplexing qPCR assays requires expensive instrumentation and most often lengthy assay development cycles. Digital PCR (dPCR), which is based on the amplification of single target DNA molecules in many separate reactions, is an attractive alternative to qPCR. Here we report a novel and easy method for multiplexing dPCR in picolitre droplets within emulsions-generated and read out in microfluidic devices-that takes advantage of both the very high numbers of reactions possible within emulsions (>10(6)) as well as the high likelihood that the amplification of only a single target DNA molecule will initiate within each droplet. By varying the concentration of different fluorogenic probes of the same color, it is possible to identify the different probes on the basis of fluorescence intensity. Adding multiple colors increases the number of possible reactions geometrically, rather than linearly as with qPCR. Accurate and precise copy numbers of up to sixteen per cell were measured using a model system. A 5-plex assay for spinal muscular atrophy was demonstrated with just two fluorophores to simultaneously measure the copy number of two genes (SMN1 and SMN2) and to genotype a single nucleotide polymorphism (c.815A>G, SMN1). Results of a pilot study with SMA patients are presented.
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
Cited by
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
Quan, P.-L., Sauzade, M., & Brouzes, E. (2018) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s18041271 · Cited by 664
Studying clonal dynamics in response to cancer therapy using high-complexity barcoding
Bhang, H.-E. C., Ruddy, D. A., Krishnamurthy Radhakrishna, V., Caushi, J. X., Zhao, R., Hims, M. M., Singh, A. P., Kao, I., Rakiec, D., Shaw, P., et al. (2015) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.3841 · Cited by 507
Polymerase chain reaction in microfluidic devices
Ahrberg, C. D., Manz, A., & Chung, B. G. (2016) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c6lc00984k · Cited by 283
Spinal muscular atrophy diagnosis and carrier screening from genome sequencing data
Chen, X., Sanchis-Juan, A., French, C. E., Connell, A. J., Delon, I., Kingsbury, Z., Chawla, A., Halpern, A. L., Taft, R. J., Bentley, D. R., et al. (2020) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41436-020-0754-0 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, Q., Bhattacharya, S., Kotsopoulos, S., Olson, J., Taly, V., Griffiths, A. D., Link, D. R., & Larson, J. W.
- Venue
- Lab on a Chip
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2167
- ISSN
- 1473-0189 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-0197
- OpenAlex
- W2151606724
- Cited by
- 297
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Multiplex digital PCR: breaking the one target per color barrier of quantitative PCR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c1lc20126c
- The paper
- Zhong, Q., Bhattacharya, S., Kotsopoulos, S., Olson, J., Taly, V., Griffiths, A. D., Link, D. R., & Larson, J. W. (2011). Multiplex digital PCR: breaking the one target per color barrier of quantitative PCR. Lab on a Chip. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1lc20126c
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.