Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method
Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and inc...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Grisedale, Kelly S [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2012 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Investigative Genetics - London : BioMed Central, 2010, 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:3 ; year:2012 ; number:1 ; day:02 ; month:07 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR031347797 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR031347797 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230519225810.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201007s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR031347797 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Grisedale, Kelly S |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2012 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 | ||
| 520 | |a Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Low template DNA |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Stochastic effects |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Consensus profiling |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a van Daal, Angela |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Investigative Genetics |d London : BioMed Central, 2010 |g 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli |w (DE-627)635135035 |w (DE-600)2572461-7 |x 2041-2223 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:3 |g year:2012 |g number:1 |g day:02 |g month:07 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2005 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2009 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2011 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2055 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2111 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 3 |j 2012 |e 1 |b 02 |c 07 | ||
| author_variant |
k s g ks ksg d a v da dav |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20412223:2012----::oprsnftpoiigrmotmltdaxrcsihnwtoth |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2012 |
| publishDate |
2012 |
| allfields |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 doi (DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Grisedale, Kelly S verfasserin aut Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 van Daal, Angela aut Enthalten in Investigative Genetics London : BioMed Central, 2010 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 2041-2223 nnns volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2012 1 02 07 |
| spelling |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 doi (DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Grisedale, Kelly S verfasserin aut Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 van Daal, Angela aut Enthalten in Investigative Genetics London : BioMed Central, 2010 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 2041-2223 nnns volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2012 1 02 07 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 doi (DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Grisedale, Kelly S verfasserin aut Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 van Daal, Angela aut Enthalten in Investigative Genetics London : BioMed Central, 2010 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 2041-2223 nnns volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2012 1 02 07 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 doi (DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Grisedale, Kelly S verfasserin aut Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 van Daal, Angela aut Enthalten in Investigative Genetics London : BioMed Central, 2010 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 2041-2223 nnns volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2012 1 02 07 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 doi (DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Grisedale, Kelly S verfasserin aut Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method 2012 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 van Daal, Angela aut Enthalten in Investigative Genetics London : BioMed Central, 2010 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli (DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 2041-2223 nnns volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2012 1 02 07 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Investigative Genetics 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Investigative Genetics 3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli volume:3 year:2012 number:1 day:02 month:07 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Low template DNA Stochastic effects Consensus profiling |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Investigative Genetics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Grisedale, Kelly S @@aut@@ van Daal, Angela @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2012-07-02T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
635135035 |
| id |
SPR031347797 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR031347797</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519225810.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/2041-2223-3-14</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR031347797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grisedale, Kelly S</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Low template DNA</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stochastic effects</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consensus profiling</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van Daal, Angela</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Investigative Genetics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)635135035</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2572461-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2041-2223</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Grisedale, Kelly S |
| spellingShingle |
Grisedale, Kelly S misc Low template DNA misc Stochastic effects misc Consensus profiling Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| authorStr |
Grisedale, Kelly S |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)635135035 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
2041-2223 |
| topic_title |
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method Low template DNA (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stochastic effects (dpeaa)DE-He213 Consensus profiling (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Low template DNA misc Stochastic effects misc Consensus profiling |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Low template DNA misc Stochastic effects misc Consensus profiling |
| topic_browse |
misc Low template DNA misc Stochastic effects misc Consensus profiling |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Investigative Genetics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
635135035 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Investigative Genetics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)635135035 (DE-600)2572461-7 |
| title |
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR031347797 (SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e |
| title_full |
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| author_sort |
Grisedale, Kelly S |
| journal |
Investigative Genetics |
| journalStr |
Investigative Genetics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2012 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Grisedale, Kelly S van Daal, Angela |
| container_volume |
3 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Grisedale, Kelly S |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |
| title_sort |
comparison of str profiling from low template dna extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| title_auth |
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| abstract |
Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 |
| abstractGer |
Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited. © Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
van Daal, Angela |
| author2Str |
van Daal, Angela |
| ppnlink |
635135035 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1186/2041-2223-3-14 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T23:17:39.306Z |
| _version_ |
1803601742985691136 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR031347797</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519225810.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2012 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/2041-2223-3-14</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR031347797</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)2041-2223-3-14-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Grisedale, Kelly S</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparison of STR profiling from low template DNA extracts with and without the consensus profiling method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Grisedale and van Daal; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background The consensus profiling method was introduced to overcome the exaggerated stochastic effects associated with low copy number DNA typing. However, little empirical evidence has been provided which shows that a consensus profile, derived from dividing a sample into separate aliquots and including only alleles seen at least twice, gives the most informative profile, compared to a profile obtained by amplifying the entire low template DNA extract in one reaction. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of consensus profiles compared to profiles obtained using the whole low template extract for amplification. Please see related article:http://www.investigativegenetics.com/content/4/1/1 Methods A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were amplified with the PowerPlex® ESI 16 Kits using 30 or 34 PCR cycles. A total of 100 pg and 25 pg DNA samples were then divided into three aliquots for a 34-cycle PCR and a consensus profile derived that included alleles that appeared in at least two of the replicates. Profiles from the non-split samples were compared to the consensus profiles focusing on peak heights, allele drop out, locus drop out and allele drop in. Results Performing DNA profiling on non-split extracts produced profiles with a higher percentage of correct loci compared to the consensus profiling technique. Consensus profiling did eliminate any spurious alleles from the final profile. However, there was a notable increase in allele and locus drop out when a LTDNA sample was divided prior to amplification. Conclusions The loss of information that occurs when a sample is split for amplification indicates that consensus profiling may not be producing the most informative DNA profile for samples where the template amount is limited.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Low template DNA</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stochastic effects</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Consensus profiling</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">van Daal, Angela</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Investigative Genetics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2010</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2012), 1 vom: 02. Juli</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)635135035</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2572461-7</subfield><subfield code="x">2041-2223</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2012</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:02</subfield><subfield code="g">month:07</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2041-2223-3-14</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2012</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">02</subfield><subfield code="c">07</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3993645 |