↓ Skip to main content

False negative results from using common PCR reagents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
False negative results from using common PCR reagents
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-4-457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dean J Bacich, Kathryn M Sobek, Jessica L Cummings, Allison A Atwood, Denise S O'Keefe

Abstract

The sensitivity of the PCR reaction makes it ideal for use when identifying potentially novel viral infections in human disease. Unfortunately, this same sensitivity also leaves this popular technique open to potential contamination with previously amplified PCR products, or "carry-over" contamination. PCR product carry-over contamination can be prevented with uracil-DNA-glycosylase (UNG), and it is for this reason that it is commonly included in many commercial PCR master-mixes. While testing the sensitivity of PCR assays to detect murine DNA contamination in human tissue samples, we inadvertently discovered that the use of this common PCR reagent may lead to the production of false-negative PCR results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 41%
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 24%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 5 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,635,960
of 14,561,657 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#242
of 3,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,956
of 110,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#19
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,561,657 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,307 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 110,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.