The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Expanded Instrument Comparison of Amplicon DNA Melting Analysis for Mutation Scanning and Genotyping
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
Cited by
High-Resolution DNA Melting Analysis for Simple and Efficient Molecular Diagnostics
Reed, G. H., Kent, J. O., & Wittwer, C. T. (2007) · Pharmacogenomics · doi:10.2217/14622416.8.6.597 · Cited by 678
Self-citationHigh-Resolution Melting Analysis (HRMA)-More than just sequence variant screening
Vossen, R. H. A. M., Aten, E., Roos, A., & den Dunnen, J. T. (2009) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.21019 · Cited by 484
An update on current and novel molecular diagnostics for the diagnosis of invasive fungal infections
Jenks, J. D., White, P. L., Kidd, S. E., Goshia, T., Fraley, S. I., Hoenigl, M., & Thompson, G. R. (2023) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1080/14737159.2023.2267977 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Herrmann, M. G., Durtschi, J. D., Wittwer, C. T., & Voelkerding, K. V.
- Venue
- Clinical Chemistry
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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.