Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Expanded Instrument Comparison of Amplicon DNA Melting Analysis for Mutation Scanning and Genotyping

Open access
Herrmann, Mark G, Durtschi, Jacob D, Wittwer, Carl T, Voelkerding, Karl V·2007·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Additional instruments have become available since instruments for DNA melting analysis of PCR products for genotyping and mutation scanning were compared. We assessed the performance of these new instruments for genotyping and scanning for mutations. Methods: A 110-bp fragment of the β-globin gene including the sickle cell anemia locus (HBB c. 20A>T) was amplified by PCR in the presence of LCGreen Plus or SYBR Green I. Amplicons of 4 different genotypes [wild-type, homozygous, and heterozygous HBB c. 20A>T and double-heterozygote HBB c. (9C>T; 20A>T)] were melted on 7 different instruments [Applied Biosystems 7300, Corbett Life Sciences Rotor-Gene 6500HRM, Eppendorf Mastercycler RealPlex4S, Idaho Technology LightScanner (384 well), Roche LightCycler 480 (96 and 384 well) and Stratagene Mx3005p] at a rate of 0.61 °C/s or when this was not possible, at 0.50 °C steps. We evaluated the ability of each instrument to genotype by melting temperature (Tm) and to scan for heterozygotes by curve shape. Results: The ability of most instruments to accurately genotype single-base changes by amplicon melting was limited by spatial temperature variation across the plate (SD of Tm = 0.020 to 0.264 °C). Other variables such as data density, signal-to-noise ratio, and melting rate also affected heterozygote scanning. Conclusions: Different instruments vary widely in their ability to genotype homozygous variants and scan for heterozygotes by whole amplicon melting analysis. Instruments specifically designed for high-resolution melting, however, displayed the least variation, suggesting better genotyping accuracy and scanning sensitivity and specificity.

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.2007.088120

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.

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

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Herrmann, M. G., Durtschi, J. D., Wittwer, C. T., & Voelkerding, K. V.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
53
Issue
8
Pages
1544-1548
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2130977216
Cited by
169
References
0
FWCI
6.47
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Expanded Instrument Comparison of Amplicon DNA Melting Analysis for Mutation Scanning and Genotyping. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2007.088120
The paper
Herrmann, M. G., Durtschi, J. D., Wittwer, C. T., & Voelkerding, K. V. (2007). Expanded Instrument Comparison of Amplicon DNA Melting Analysis for Mutation Scanning and Genotyping. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2007.088120

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.