Cited by 42Molecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlGene expression and cancer classification

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Applicability of RNA standards for evaluating RT-qPCR assays and platforms

Open access

Abstract

The availability of diverse RT-qPCR assay formats and technologies hinder comparability of data between platforms. Reference standards to facilitate platform evaluation and comparability are needed. We have explored using universal RNA standards for comparing the performance of a novel qPCR platform (Fluidigm® BioMark™) against the widely used ABI 7900HT system. Our results show that such standards may form part of a toolkit to evaluate the key performance characteristics of platforms.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2164-12-118

Cites

22 of 22 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Improvements to qPCR using similar technologies to those advancing dPCR will increase throughput of qPCR, at the cost of smaller input volume which often requires pre-amplification; this is not routinely needed for dPCR.

    “Improvements to qPCR using similar technologies to those advancing dPCR will increase the throughput of qPCR, as has already been described (21), although this is also at the cost of smaller input volume which often requires pre-amplification (39); this is not routinely needed for dPCR.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Use of External RNA Controls in Gene Expression Assays. 2010, Approved Guideline 26 No. 29, MM16-A.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Devonshire, A. S., Elaswarapu, R., & Foy, C. A.
Affiliations
LGC (GB)
Corresponding author
Elaswarapu, Ramnath
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2011-02-18
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
118-118
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2088925963
Cited by
42
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
reference materials, assay performance, data comparability
MeSH terms
Reference Standards, RNA, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, Limit of Detection

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