Bisulfite-Converted DNA Quantity Evaluation: A Multiplex Quantitative Real-Time PCR System for Evaluation of Bisulfite Conversion
Frontiers in Genetics, ISSN: 1664-8021, Vol: 12, Page: 618955
2021
- 23Citations
- 69Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations23
- Citation Indexes23
- 23
- Captures69
- Readers69
- 69
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent News
A Multi-Center Multi-Omics Approach for Investigating Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms in Autism Spectrum Disorder
2024 NOV 07 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Gene Therapy Daily News -- Staff editors report on the newly launched clinical
Article Description
Bisulfite (BS) conversion, which includes a series of chemical reactions using bisulfite, is a prerequisite to most DNA methylation analysis methods, and thus is an essential step in the associated research process. Unfortunately, BS conversion leads to the degradation or loss of DNA, which can hinder further downstream analysis. In addition, it is well known that incomplete BS conversion is crucial, as it causes an exaggeration of the DNA methylation level, which can adversely affect the results. Therefore, there have been many attempts to measure three key features of BS conversion: BS conversion efficiency, recovery, and degradation level. In this study, a multiplex quantitative real-time PCR system named BisQuE was suggested to simultaneously analyze three important aspects of the conversion step. By adopting cytosine-free PCR primers for two differently sized multicopy regions, the short amplicon and long amplicon were obtained from both the genomic and BS-converted DNA, thus enabling the obtaining of reliable and sensitive results and the calculation of the degradation level of the conversion step. Also, probes for detecting converted/unconverted templates and C-T indicators for inducing the formula were included in this assay to quantify BS-converted DNA in order to compute the conversion efficiency and recovery. Six BS conversion kits (EZ DNA Methylation-Lightning Kit, Premium Bisulfite kit, MethylEdge Bisulfite Conversion System, EpiJET Bisulfite Conversion Kit, EpiTect Fast DNA Bisulfite Kit, and NEBNext Enzymatic Methyl-seq Conversion Module) were tested in 20 samples using 50 ng of genomic DNA as an input with the BisQuE. The conversion efficiency, degradation levels, as well as recovery rates of the kits were investigated. A total of 99.61–99.90% conversion efficiency was perceived for five of the kits, while the NEBNext kit showed about 94%. The lowest degradation level was shown by the NEBNext kit, whereas the other kits were quite similar. The recovery rates of the kits were found to be within the range of 18–50%. A Qubit assay was also used to compare the recovery rate of BisQuE.
Bibliographic Details
10.3389/fgene.2021.618955; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s008; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s002; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s009; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s005; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s004; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s010; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s003; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s006; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s001; 10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s007
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85102442278&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33719336; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s008; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s008; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/full; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s002; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s002; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s009; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s009; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s005; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s005; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s004; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s004; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s010; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s010; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s003; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s003; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s006; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s006; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s001; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s001; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/supplementary-material/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s007; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s007; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s010; https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955/full; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s008; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s007; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s004; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s006; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s009; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s001; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s005; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s002; https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.618955.s003
Frontiers Media SA
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know