Title |
Empirical evaluation of humpback whale telomere length estimates; quality control and factors causing variability in the singleplex and multiplex qPCR methods
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Genomic Data, September 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2156-13-77 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Morten Tange Olsen, Martine Bérubé, Jooke Robbins, Per J Palsbøll |
Abstract |
Telomeres, the protective cap of chromosomes, have emerged as powerful markers of biological age and life history in model and non-model species. The qPCR method for telomere length estimation is one of the most common methods for telomere length estimation, but has received recent critique for being too error-prone and yielding unreliable results. This critique coincides with an increasing awareness of the potentials and limitations of the qPCR technique in general and the proposal of a general set of guidelines (MIQE) for standardization of experimental, analytical, and reporting steps of qPCR. In order to evaluate the utility of the qPCR method for telomere length estimation in non-model species, we carried out four different qPCR assays directed at humpback whale telomeres, and subsequently performed a rigorous quality control to evaluate the performance of each assay. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
India | 1 | 25% |
Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Germany | 1 | 1% |
Norway | 1 | 1% |
Canada | 1 | 1% |
Mexico | 1 | 1% |
Spain | 1 | 1% |
United States | 1 | 1% |
Unknown | 93 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 24 | 24% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 20% |
Student > Master | 15 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 8 | 8% |
Other | 7 | 7% |
Other | 12 | 12% |
Unknown | 13 | 13% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 52 | 53% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
Environmental Science | 4 | 4% |
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 3% |
Other | 7 | 7% |
Unknown | 16 | 16% |