Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR for gene expression analysis with low abundant targets: from variable nonsense to publication quality data
Abstract Quantitative PCR (qPCR) has become the gold standard technique to measure cDNA and gDNA levels but the resulting data can be highly variable, artifactual and non-reproducible without appropriate verification and validation of both samples and primers. The root cause of poor quality data is...
Guardado en:
Autores principales: | Sean C. Taylor, Genevieve Laperriere, Hugo Germain |
---|---|
Formato: | article |
Lenguaje: | EN |
Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/4d07ff82020847f8b55f25f42876f2de |
Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Ejemplares similares
-
Universal probe-based intermediate primer-triggered qPCR (UPIP-qPCR) for SNP genotyping
por: Baowei Li, et al.
Publicado: (2021) -
Laboratory Exercise to Measure Plasmid Copy Number by qPCR
por: Benjamin David, et al.
Publicado: (2021) -
Instability of 8E5 calibration standard revealed by digital PCR risks inaccurate quantification of HIV DNA in clinical samples by qPCR
por: Eloise Busby, et al.
Publicado: (2017) -
Comparison of three qPCR-based commercial tests for detection of periodontal pathogens
por: Fridus Van der Weijden, et al.
Publicado: (2021) -
Evaluation validation of a qPCR curve analysis method and conventional approaches
por: Yashu Zhang, et al.
Publicado: (2021)