Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Hybridization probes for conventional DNA fingerprinting used as single primers in the polymerase chain reaction to distinguish strains of Cryptococcus neoformans

Open access
Meyer, W, Mitchell, T G, Freedman, E Z, Vilgalys, R·1993·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

In conventional DNA fingerprinting, hypervariable and repetitive sequences (minisatellite or microsatellite DNA) are detected with hybridization probes. As demonstrated here, these probes can be used as single primers in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to generate individual fingerprints. Several conventional DNA fingerprinting probes were used to prime the PCR, yielding distinctive, hypervariable multifragment profiles for different strains of Cryptococcus neoformans. PCR fingerprinting with the oligonucleotide primers (GTG)5, (GACA)4, and the phage M13 core sequence (GAGGGTGGXGGXTCT), but not with (CA)8 or (CT)8, generated DNA polymorphisms with all 42 strains of C. neoformans investigated. PCR fingerprints produced by priming with (GTG)5, (GACA)4, or the M13 core sequence differentiated the two varieties of C. neoformans, C. neoformans var. neoformans (serotypes A and D) and C. neoformans var. gattii (serotypes B and C). Furthermore, strains of serotypes A, D, and B or C could be distinguished from each other by specific PCR fingerprint patterns. These primers, which also successfully amplified hypervariable DNA segments from other species, provide a convenient method of identification at the species or individual level. Amplification of polymorphic DNA patterns by PCR with these primers offers several advantages over classical DNA fingerprinting techniques, appears to be more reliable than other PCR-based methods for detecting polymorphic DNA, such as analysis of random-amplified polymorphic DNA, and should be applicable to many other organisms.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.31.9.2274-2280.1993

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Meyer, W., Mitchell, T. G., Freedman, E. Z., & Vilgalys, R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
1993-09
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
2274-2280
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W1536148864
Cited by
324
References
30
FWCI
11.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Hybridization probes for conventional DNA fingerprinting used as single primers in the polymerase chain reaction to distinguish strains of Cryptococcus neoformans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.31.9.2274-2280.1993
The paper
Meyer, W., Mitchell, T. G., Freedman, E. Z., & Vilgalys, R. (1993). Hybridization probes for conventional DNA fingerprinting used as single primers in the polymerase chain reaction to distinguish strains of Cryptococcus neoformans. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.31.9.2274-2280.1993

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.