↓ Skip to main content

Quality control of digital PCR assays and platforms

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Quality control of digital PCR assays and platforms
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00216-017-0538-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthijs Vynck, Jo Vandesompele, Olivier Thas

Abstract

Digital polymerase chain reaction (digital PCR, dPCR) is a direct nucleic acid quantification method, thus requiring no standard curves unlike quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Nevertheless, evaluation of the linear dynamic range, accuracy, and precision of an assay or platform is recommended, as there are several potential causes of important non-linearity, bias, and imprecision. Ignoring these quality issues may lead to erroneous quantification. This necessitates an approach akin to the construction of standard curves. We study the pitfalls associated with the evaluation of such an experiment, and provide guidelines for the assessment of linearity, accuracy, and precision in dPCR experiments. We present simulation results and a case study supporting the importance of a thorough evaluation. Further, typically presented plots and statistics may not reveal problems with linearity, accuracy, or precision. We find that a robust weighted least-squares approach is highly advisable, yet may also suffer from an inflated false-positive rate. The proposed assessments are also applicable to other analyses, such as the comparison of results obtained from qPCR and dPCR. A web tool for quality evaluation, dPCalibRate, is available.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 7%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#4,322
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,386
of 327,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#27
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 327,545 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.