2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2006.04.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of uncertainty in quantitative real-time PCR

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S2). We retested microcosm DNAs that tested positive for Camp with Campylobacter jejuni ‐specific assays mapA (Price et al ., 2006) and groEL (Love et al ., 2006), and both were below assay limits of detection. A search for database sequences matching Camp primers and probe found no exact matches outside the genus Campylobacter (NCBI nr/nt).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…S2). We retested microcosm DNAs that tested positive for Camp with Campylobacter jejuni ‐specific assays mapA (Price et al ., 2006) and groEL (Love et al ., 2006), and both were below assay limits of detection. A search for database sequences matching Camp primers and probe found no exact matches outside the genus Campylobacter (NCBI nr/nt).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The assay sensitivity was evaluated by 10-fold dilution of a synthetic capped mRNA transcript to take into account both the RT and the PCR step. The obtained sensitivity of 10 copies per reaction under optimal conditions represents approximately 2500 copies of target per g of feces, although this estimation has important limitations (Love et al, 2006). The obtained Ct-values for the 208 BoNoV positive samples ranged from 6.9 to 39.7 (Fig.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Hence, coverage of the target bacterial genera in the present study may have been restricted by the availability of sequence data for the species within each genus. Also, what is ultimately achieved from the quantification of bacteria in a qPCR-based study is relative to the processed standard curve, and any unanticipated error through standard curve construction can adversely affect the interpretation of results [57, 58]. Also, it would impose a considerable cost and time to individually assess all samples for more than a few bacteria by real-time PCR.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%