The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
DNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples
Open accessAbstract
Histopathological samples are a treasure-trove of DNA for clinical research. However, the quality of DNA can vary depending on the source or extraction method applied. Thus a standardized and cost-effective workflow for the qualification of DNA preparations is essential to guarantee interlaboratory reproducible results. The qualification process consists of the quantification of double strand DNA (dsDNA) and the assessment of its suitability for downstream applications, such as high-throughput next-generation sequencing. We tested the two most frequently used instrumentations to define their role in this process: NanoDrop, based on UV spectroscopy, and Qubit 2.0, which uses fluorochromes specifically binding dsDNA. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used as the reference technique as it simultaneously assesses DNA concentration and suitability for PCR amplification. We used 17 genomic DNAs from 6 fresh-frozen (FF) tissues, 6 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, 3 cell lines, and 2 commercial preparations. Intra- and inter-operator variability was negligible, and intra-methodology variability was minimal, while consistent inter-methodology divergences were observed. In fact, NanoDrop measured DNA concentrations higher than Qubit and its consistency with dsDNA quantification by qPCR was limited to high molecular weight DNA from FF samples and cell lines, where total DNA and dsDNA quantity virtually coincide. In partially degraded DNA from FFPE samples, only Qubit proved highly reproducible and consistent with qPCR measurements. Multiplex PCR amplifying 191 regions of 46 cancer-related genes was designated the downstream application, using 40 ng dsDNA from FFPE samples calculated by Qubit. All but one sample produced amplicon libraries suitable for next-generation sequencing. NanoDrop UV-spectrum verified contamination of the unsuccessful sample. In conclusion, as qPCR has high costs and is labor intensive, an alternative effective standard workflow for qualification of DNA preparations should include the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit to assess the purity and quantity of dsDNA, respectively.
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
Abràmoff, M. D., Magalhães, P. J., & Ram, S. J. (2004) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · Cited by 11,821
Advances in understanding cancer genomes through second-generation sequencing
Meyerson, M., Gabriel, S., & Getz, G. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2841 · Cited by 1,116
Validity of nucleic acid purities monitored by 260nm/280nm absorbance ratios.
Glasel, J. A. (1995) · PubMed · Cited by 436
NanoDrop Microvolume Quantitation of Nucleic Acids
Desjardins, P., & Conklin, D. (2010) · Journal of Visualized Experiments · doi:10.3791/2565 · Cited by 417
Genetic profile of 22 pancreatic carcinoma cell lines: Analysis of K-ras, p53, p16 and DPC4/Smad4
Moore, P. S., Sipos, B., Orlandini, S., Sorio, C., Real, F. X., Lemoine, N. R., Gress, T., Bassi, C., Klöppel, G., Kalthoff, H., et al. (2001) · Virchows Archiv · doi:10.1007/s004280100474 · Cited by 329
Self-citationUse of UV Methods for Measurement of Protein and Nucleic Acid Concentrations
Manchester, K. L. (1996) · BioTechniques · doi:10.2144/96206bm05 · Cited by 201
Next-generation sequencing and its applications in molecular diagnostics
Su, Z., Ning, B., Fang, H., Hong, H., Perkins, R., Tong, W., & Shi, L. (2011) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1586/erm.11.3 · Cited by 179
Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing
Guo, F., & Zhang, T. (2013) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-012-4244-4 · Cited by 174
Whole Cancer Genome Sequencing by Next-Generation Methods
Ross, J. S., & Cronin, M. (2011) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1309/ajcpr1svt1vhugxw · Cited by 164
Performance of high-throughput DNA quantification methods
Haque, K. A., Pfeiffer, R. M., Beerman, M., et al. (2003) · BMC Biotechnology · doi:10.1186/1472-6750-3-20 · Cited by 116
Cited by
DNA Source Selection for Downstream Applications Based on DNA Quality Indicators Analysis
Lucena-Aguilar, G., Sánchez-López, A. M., Barberán-Aceituno, C., Carrillo-Ávila, J. A., López-Guerrero, J. A., & Aguilar-Quesada, R. (2016) · Biopreservation and Biobanking · doi:10.1089/bio.2015.0064 · Cited by 286
Gardner, C. M., & Gunsch, C. K. (2017) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.02.030 · Cited by 62
Casarin, M., Fortunato, T. M., Imran, S., Todesco, M., Sandrin, D., Borile, G., Toniolo, I., Marchesan, M., Gerosa, G., Bagno, A., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms23052826 · Cited by 58
Bravo-Lopez, M., Villa-Islas, V., Rocha Arriaga, C., Villaseñor-Altamirano, A. B., Guzmán-Solís, A., Sandoval-Velasco, M., Wesp, J. K., Alcantara, K., López-Corral, A., Gómez-Valdés, J., et al. (2020) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0580 · Cited by 40
Preservation of DNA for Data Storage
Tan, X., Ge, L., Zhang, T., & Lu, Z. (2021) · Russian Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1070/rcr4994 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Simbolo, M., Gottardi, M., Corbo, V., Fassan, M., Mafficini, A., Malpeli, G., Lawlor, R. T., & Scarpa, A.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-06-06
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e62692
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996472996
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 9.82
- 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: DNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0062692
- The paper
- Simbolo, M., Gottardi, M., Corbo, V., Fassan, M., Mafficini, A., Malpeli, G., Lawlor, R. T., & Scarpa, A. (2013). DNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062692
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.