Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 531

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Scanning by High-Resolution Melting Analysis

Reed, Gudrun H, Wittwer, Carl T·2004·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Screening for heterozygous sequence changes in PCR products, also known as “mutation scanning”, is an important tool for genetic research and clinical applications. Conventional methods require a separation step. Methods: We evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of homogeneous scanning, using a saturating DNA dye and high-resolution melting. Heterozygous single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection was studied in three different sequence backgrounds of 40%, 50%, and 60% GC content. PCR products of 50–1000 bp were generated in the presence of LCGreen™ I. After fluorescence normalization and temperature overlay, melting curve shape was used to judge the presence or absence of heterozygotes among 1632 cases. Results: For PCR products of 300 bp or less, all 280 heterozygous and 296 wild-type cases were correctly called without error. In 672 cases between 400 and 1000 bp with the mutation centered, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.1% and 99.4%, respectively. When the sequence background and product size with the greatest error rate were used, the sensitivity of off-center SNPs (384 cases) was 95.6% with a specificity of 99.4%. Most false negatives occurred with SNPs that were compared with an A or T wild type sequence. Conclusions: High-resolution melting analysis with the dye LCGreen I identifies heterozygous single-base changes in PCR products with a sensitivity and specificity comparable or superior to nonhomogeneous techniques. The error rate of scanning depends on the PCR product size and the type of base change, but not on the position of the SNP. The technique requires only PCR reagents, the dye LCGreen I, and 1–2 min of closed-tube, post-PCR analysis.

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2003.029751

Cites

14 of 14 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 14 references

Cited by

See all 531

Metadata

Authors
Reed, G. H., & Wittwer, C. T.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2004-10-01
Volume
50
Issue
10
Pages
1748-1754
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2163350392
Cited by
531
References
14
FWCI
5.36
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: Sensitivity and Specificity of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Scanning by High-Resolution Melting Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2003.029751
The paper
Reed, G. H., & Wittwer, C. T. (2004). Sensitivity and Specificity of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Scanning by High-Resolution Melting Analysis. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2003.029751

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.