↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Droplet Digital PCR and Seminested Real-Time PCR for Quantification of Cell-Associated HIV-1 RNA

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of Droplet Digital PCR and Seminested Real-Time PCR for Quantification of Cell-Associated HIV-1 RNA
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085999
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maja Kiselinova, Alexander O. Pasternak, Ward De Spiegelaere, Dirk Vogelaers, Ben Berkhout, Linos Vandekerckhove

Abstract

Cell-associated (CA) HIV-1 RNA is considered a potential marker for assessment of viral reservoir dynamics and antiretroviral therapy (ART) response in HIV-infected patients. Recent studies employed sensitive seminested real-time quantitative (q)PCR to quantify CA HIV-1 RNA. Digital PCR has been recently described as an alternative PCR-based technique for absolute quantification with higher accuracy compared to qPCR. Here, a comparison was made between the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and the seminested qPCR for quantification of unspliced (us) and multiply spliced (ms) CA HIV-1 RNA. Synthetic RNA standards and CA HIV-1 RNA from infected patients on and off ART (N = 34) were quantified with both methods. Correlations were observed between the methods both for serially diluted synthetic standards (usRNA: R2 = 0.97, msRNA: R2 = 0.92) and patient-derived samples (usRNA: R2 = 0.51, msRNA: R2 = 0.87). Seminested qPCR showed better quantitative linearity, accuracy and sensitivity in the quantification of synthetic standards than ddPCR, especially in the lower quantification ranges. Both methods demonstrated equally high detection rate of usRNA in patient samples on and off ART (91%), whereas ddPCR detected msRNA in larger proportion of samples from ART-treated patients (p = 0.13). We observed an average agreement between the methods for usRNA quantification in patient samples, albeit with a large standard deviation (bias = 0.05±0.75 log10). However, a bias of 0.94±0.36 log10 was observed for msRNA. No-template controls were consistently negative in the seminested qPCR, but yielded a positive ddPCR signal for some wells. Therefore, the false positive signals may have affected the detection power of ddPCR in this study. Digital PCR is promising for HIV nucleic acid quantification, but the false positive signals need further attention. Quantitative assays for CA HIV RNA have the potential to improve monitoring of patients on ART and to be used in clinical studies aimed at HIV eradication, but should be cross-validated by multiple laboratories prior to wider use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 2 1%
Belgium 2 1%
Denmark 2 1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Puerto Rico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 177 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 21%
Other 17 9%
Student > Master 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 35 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 16%
Immunology and Microbiology 20 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 10%
Engineering 9 5%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 43 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 06 February 2014.
All research outputs
#14,645,121
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#122,506
of 194,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,348
of 305,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,330
of 5,578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.