The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PCR fidelity of pfu DNA polymerase and other thermostable DNA polymerases
Open accessAbstract
The replication fidelities of Pfu, Taq, Vent, Deep Vent and UlTma DNA polymerases were compared using a PCR-based forward mutation assay. Average error rates (mutation frequency/bp/duplication) increased as follows: Pfu (1.3 x 10(-6)) < Deep Vent (2.7 x 10(-6)) < Vent (2.8 x 10(-6)) < Taq (8.0 x 10(-6)) < < exo- Pfu and UlTma (approximately 5 x 10(-5)). Buffer optimization experiments indicated that Pfu fidelity was highest in the presence of 2-3 mM MgSO4 and 100-300 microM each dNTP and at pH 8.5-9.1. Under these conditions, the error rate of exo- Pfu was approximately 40-fold higher (5 x 10(-5)) than the error rate of Pfu. As the reaction pH was raised from pH 8 to 9, the error rate of Pfu decreased approximately 2-fold, while the error rate of exo- Pfu increased approximately 9-fold. An increase in error rate with pH has also been noted for the exonuclease-deficient DNA polymerases Taq and exo- Klenow, suggesting that the parameters which influence replication error rates may be similar in pol l- and alpha-like polymerases. Finally, the fidelity of 'long PCR' DNA polymerase mixtures was examined. The error rates of a Taq/Pfu DNA polymerase mixture and a Klentaq/Pfu DNA polymerase mixture were found to be less than the error rate of Taq DNA polymerase, but approximately 3-4-fold higher than the error rate of Pfu DNA polymerase.
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
Hydrogen Ion Buffers for Biological Research*
Good, N. E., Winget, G. D., Winter, W., Connolly, T. N., Izawa, S., & Singh, R. M. M. (1966) · Biochemistry · doi:10.1021/bi00866a011 · Cited by 2,762
Kunkel, T. A. (2004) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.r400006200 · Cited by 754
FIDELITY MECHANISMS IN DNA REPLICATION
Echols, H., & Goodman, M. F. (1991) · Annual Review of Biochemistry · doi:10.1146/annurev.bi.60.070191.002401 · Cited by 712
Biochemical Basis of DNA Replication Fidelity
Goodman, M. F., Creighton, S., Bloom, L. B., Petruska, J., & Kunkel, T. A. (1993) · Critical Reviews in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · doi:10.3109/10409239309086792 · Cited by 446
Cited by
Reducing the Effects of PCR Amplification and Sequencing Artifacts on 16S rRNA-Based Studies
Schloss, P. D., Gevers, D., & Westcott, S. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027310 · Cited by 2,112
Towards next-generation biodiversity assessment using DNA metabarcoding
TABERLET, P., COISSAC, E., POMPANON, F., BROCHMANN, C., & WILLERSLEV, E. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05470.x · Cited by 1,907
Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data
Ross, M. G., Russ, C., Costello, M., Hollinger, A., Lennon, N. J., Hegarty, R., Nusbaum, C., & Jaffe, D. B. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-5-r51 · Cited by 909
Pre-existing Anti–Adeno-Associated Virus Antibodies as a Challenge in AAV Gene Therapy
Louis Jeune, V., Joergensen, J. A., Hajjar, R. J., & Weber, T. (2013) · Human Gene Therapy Methods · doi:10.1089/hgtb.2012.243 · Cited by 358
Shining a Light on Dark Sequencing: Characterising Errors in Ion Torrent PGM Data
Bragg, L. M., Stone, G., Butler, M. K., Hugenholtz, P., & Tyson, G. W. (2013) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003031 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Cline, J.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-09-15
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 3546-3551
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2128692282
- Cited by
- 718
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 5.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.