Characterization of whole genome amplified (WGA) DNA for use in genotyping assay development
Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice...
Saved in:
| Published in | BMC genomics Vol. 13; no. 1; p. 217 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
London
BioMed Central
01.06.2012
BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 1471-2164 1471-2164 |
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217 |
Cover
| Abstract | Background
Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized.
Results
To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA.
Conclusion
The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized.BACKGROUNDGenotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized.To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA.RESULTSTo assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA.The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA.CONCLUSIONThe relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Abstract Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. Results To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. Conclusion The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. BACKGROUND: Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. RESULTS: To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. CONCLUSION: The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. Results To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. Conclusion The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA) methods have been developed. The multiple displacement amplification (MDA) method using Φ29 polymerase has become the preferred choice due to its high processivity and low error rate. However, the uniformity and fidelity of the amplification process across the genome has not been extensively characterized. Results To assess amplification uniformity, we used array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) to evaluate DNA copy number variations (CNVs) in DNAs amplified by two MDA kits: GenomiPhi and REPLI-g. The Agilent Human CGH array containing nearly one million probes was used in this study together with DNAs from a normal subject and 2 cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Each DNA sample was amplified 4 independent times and compared to its native unamplified DNA. Komogorov distances and Phi correlations showed a high consistency within each sample group. Less than 2% of the probes showed more than 2-fold CNV introduced by the amplification process. The two amplification kits, REPLI-g and GenomiPhi, generate very similar amplified DNA samples despite the differences between the unamplified and amplified DNA samples. The results from aCGH analysis indicated that there were no obvious CNVs in the CFTR gene region due to WGA when compared to unamplified DNA. This was confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR copy number assays at 10 locations within the CFTR gene. DNA sequencing analysis of a 2-kb region within the CFTR gene showed no mutations introduced by WGA. Conclusion The relatively high uniformity and consistency of the WGA process, coupled with the low replication error rate, suggests that WGA DNA may be suitable for accurate genotyping. Regions of the genome that were consistently under-amplified were found to contain higher than average GC content. Because of the consistent differences between the WGA DNA and the native unamplified DNA, characterization of the genomic region of interest, as described here, will be necessary to ensure the reliability of genotyping results from WGA DNA. Keywords: Whole genome amplification, Array-based comparative genomic hybridization, TaqMan copy number assay, DNA sequencing |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Težak, Živana Kwekel, Joshua C Philip, Reena Chang, Ching-Wei Chen, Ying Fuscoe, James C Martinez-Murillo, Francisco Han, Tao Roscoe, Donna Ge, Yun Bijwaard, Karen |
| AuthorAffiliation | 3 Division of Genetic and Molecular Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA 4 Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA 2 Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA 1 Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 1 Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA – name: 4 Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA – name: 2 Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA – name: 3 Division of Genetic and Molecular Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA, Jefferson, AR, 72079, USA |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Tao surname: Han fullname: Han, Tao email: Tao.Han@fda.hhs.gov organization: Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA – sequence: 2 givenname: Ching-Wei surname: Chang fullname: Chang, Ching-Wei organization: Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA – sequence: 3 givenname: Joshua C surname: Kwekel fullname: Kwekel, Joshua C organization: Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA – sequence: 4 givenname: Ying surname: Chen fullname: Chen, Ying organization: Division of Genetic and Molecular Toxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA – sequence: 5 givenname: Yun surname: Ge fullname: Ge, Yun organization: Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA – sequence: 6 givenname: Francisco surname: Martinez-Murillo fullname: Martinez-Murillo, Francisco organization: Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA – sequence: 7 givenname: Donna surname: Roscoe fullname: Roscoe, Donna organization: Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA – sequence: 8 givenname: Živana surname: Težak fullname: Težak, Živana organization: Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA – sequence: 9 givenname: Reena surname: Philip fullname: Philip, Reena organization: Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA – sequence: 10 givenname: Karen surname: Bijwaard fullname: Bijwaard, Karen organization: Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA – sequence: 11 givenname: James C surname: Fuscoe fullname: Fuscoe, James C email: James.Fuscoe@fda.hhs.gov organization: Division of Systems Biology, National Center for Toxicological Research, FDA |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655855$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kk1v1DAQhiNURD_gzglF4tIettiO4zgXpNUCZaUKJD7EBclynHHWq8Te2klh-fU4m7bqohb5MNbM877yjOc4ObDOQpK8xOgcY87eYFrgGcGMznAWY_EkObpLHdy7HybHIawRwgUn-bPkkBCW5zzPj5Kfi5X0UvXgzR_ZG2dTp9NfK9dC2oB1HaSy27RGG6jT0x8X87P03ad5qp1PhwCpsTuq326MbVIZgtymNVxD6zYd2P558lTLNsCLm3iSfP_w_tvi4-zy88VyMb-cVYzl_UxLWihdMaBEEaoYziVIQLyiJVE0z-oqwwwILTFVGJNcVqBppDKeSU1j9SRZTr61k2ux8aaTfiucNGKXcL4R0vdGtSCKuiigLEvONKKspBzpMtMF4rxEJeE8er2dvDZD1UGtYhtetnum-xVrVqJx1yKjKCtJHg0Wk0Fl3CMG-xXlOjH-lBh_SuAsxiK6nN48w7urAUIvOhMUtK204IYgMCIF45igEX09oY2MDRqrXbRVIy7meUZxHBQZqfMHqHhq6IyKa6VNzO8JzvYEkenhd9_IIQSx_Ppln311f2h3zd7uWQTYBCjvQvCghTL9bt_iK0wb2xHjQj80B_SP8Nb7PxI8SUJEbQNerN3gbVzAxzV_AQ8iA0M |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1093_sysbio_syy029 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12864_018_4572_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cub_2018_05_070 crossref_primary_10_1093_sysbio_syt070 crossref_primary_10_1111_mec_14564 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0067510 crossref_primary_10_1111_mpp_13158 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40168_017_0292_4 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40168_018_0507_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_humimm_2015_04_007 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0106817 crossref_primary_10_1126_science_aab1785 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcvm_2022_1058308 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2164_15_889 crossref_primary_10_1586_erm_13_28 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10530_019_02069_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ymgmr_2017_04_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_aca_2020_10_031 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0139857 crossref_primary_10_1089_cbr_2016_2059 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmars_2017_00301 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_forsciint_2022_111181 crossref_primary_10_1158_1541_7786_MCR_15_0330 crossref_primary_10_1093_carcin_bgv171 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00248_014_0517_z crossref_primary_10_1093_dnares_dsu028 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0073455 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_81788_2 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1007/978-1-59745-188-8_1 10.1101/gr.1949704 10.1002/humu.20324 10.1073/pnas.89.13.5847 10.1097/PAT.0b013e32834e411e 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90063-7 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407 10.1093/nar/gni089 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818e55a2 10.1002/humu.20341 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl646 10.1186/1471-2164-10-159 10.1093/nar/28.2.e7 10.1186/1471-2164-7-216 10.1002/pd.1667 10.1002/elps.200600674 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61799-3 10.1038/nature09792 10.1093/nar/gnh069 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65254-6 10.1126/science.1359641 10.1093/molehr/gah101 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.03.022 10.1093/nar/gkl336 10.1093/biostatistics/kxh008 10.1002/elps.200900325 10.1038/nprot.2006.326 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63092-1 10.1375/twin.8.4.346 10.1186/1472-6750-5-24 10.1056/NEJMp1006304 10.1586/14737159.4.4.465 10.1097/01.pas.0000177801.60121.05 10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.08.007 10.1073/pnas.082089499 10.1002/humu.21260 10.1016/0888-7543(92)90147-K 10.2353/jmoldx.2008.070155 10.1038/labinvest.3700495 10.1101/gr.816903 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 COPYRIGHT 2012 BioMed Central Ltd. Copyright ©2012 Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 – notice: COPYRIGHT 2012 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: Copyright ©2012 Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012 Han et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM ISR 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217 |
| DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Gale In Context: Science MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: C6C name: Springer Nature OA Free Journals url: http://www.springeropen.com/ sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 3 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 4 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Biology |
| EISSN | 1471-2164 |
| EndPage | 217 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_7d77e99986f0469480f93f7088909288 PMC3403925 oai_biomedcentral_com_1471_2164_13_217 A534115327 22655855 10_1186_1471_2164_13_217 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | United States |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United States |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2VQ 2WC 2XV 4.4 53G 5VS 6J9 7X7 88E 8AO 8FE 8FH 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAHBH AAJSJ AASML ABDBF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACIHN ACIWK ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHBYD AHMBA AHSBF AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BBNVY BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BHPHI BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EAS EBD EBLON EBS EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IGS IHR INH INR ISR ITC KQ8 LK8 M1P M48 M7P M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SBL SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS U2A UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB AAYXX ALIPV C1A CITATION H13 IPNFZ RIG CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 -A0 3V. ABVAZ ACRMQ ADINQ AFGXO AFNRJ AIXEN C24 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-b665t-fa47cfb6e42c24c615aeae08b492c453db316e24914c1125abef4615383af4db3 |
| IEDL.DBID | M48 |
| ISSN | 1471-2164 |
| IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:21:12 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 13:58:55 EDT 2025 Wed May 22 07:15:34 EDT 2024 Fri Sep 05 13:36:52 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 22:04:50 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 10:57:37 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 05:57:27 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:15:21 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 02:21:56 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:10:47 EDT 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:28:40 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Whole genome amplification TaqMan copy number assay Array-based comparative genomic hybridization DNA sequencing |
| Language | English |
| License | This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-b665t-fa47cfb6e42c24c615aeae08b492c453db316e24914c1125abef4615383af4db3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://link.springer.com/10.1186/1471-2164-13-217 |
| PMID | 22655855 |
| PQID | 1027681207 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 1 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_7d77e99986f0469480f93f7088909288 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3403925 biomedcentral_primary_oai_biomedcentral_com_1471_2164_13_217 proquest_miscellaneous_1027681207 gale_infotracmisc_A534115327 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A534115327 gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A534115327 pubmed_primary_22655855 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_1471_2164_13_217 crossref_primary_10_1186_1471_2164_13_217 springer_journals_10_1186_1471_2164_13_217 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2012-06-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2012-06-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2012 text: 2012-06-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | BMC genomics |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Genomics |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Genomics |
| PublicationYear | 2012 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BMC |
| References | 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B26 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B27 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B29 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B40 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B20 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B21 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B43 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B22 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B44 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B23 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B45 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B24 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B46 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B25 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B5 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B4 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B7 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B6 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B9 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B8 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B37 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B38 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B17 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B39 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B18 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B1 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B19 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B3 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B30 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B31 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B10 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B32 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B11 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B33 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B12 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B34 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B13 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B35 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B14 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B36 14695315 - Am J Pathol. 2004 Jan;164(1):23-33 15225094 - Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2004 Jul;4(4):465-77 7501463 - Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 Nov 11;23(21):4407-14 16176719 - Twin Res Hum Genet. 2005 Aug;8(4):346-52 16193324 - Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):504-7 19366436 - BMC Genomics. 2009;10:159 3260274 - J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(6):583-91 18403606 - J Mol Diagn. 2008 May;10(3):249-57 19092437 - Genet Med. 2008 Dec;10(12):851-68 20551152 - N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 22;363(4):301-4 19521335 - MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009 Jun 12;58(RR-6):1-37; quiz CE-1-4 16619243 - Hum Mutat. 2006 May;27(5):496-503 17234643 - Bioinformatics. 2007 Mar 15;23(6):657-63 11959976 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Apr 16;99(8):5261-6 15475419 - Biostatistics. 2004 Oct;5(4):557-72 16687226 - Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Feb 14;166(1):35-41 2498321 - J Biol Chem. 1989 May 25;264(15):8935-40 21307931 - Nature. 2011 Feb 10;470(7333):187-97 22157688 - Pathology. 2012 Jan;44(1):33-41 17278176 - Prenat Diagn. 2007 Apr;27(4):297-302 16698960 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(9):e68 15322224 - Mol Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;10(10):767-72 9916922 - Am J Pathol. 1999 Jan;154(1):83-95 10606675 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 15;28(2):e7 12695328 - Genome Res. 2003 May;13(5):954-64 16168060 - BMC Biotechnol. 2005;5:24 18786630 - Genomics. 2008 Dec;92(6):452-6 19290880 - Biochem Soc Trans. 2009 Apr;37(Pt 2):450-3 1639399 - Genomics. 1992 Jul;13(3):718-25 17702060 - Electrophoresis. 2007 Aug;28(16):2812-7 15150323 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(9):e71 16319690 - Diagn Mol Pathol. 2005 Dec;14(4):203-12 20506564 - Hum Mutat. 2010 Jun;31(6):631-55 15820046 - Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Mar;10(3):376-80 17170740 - Lab Invest. 2007 Jan;87(1):75-83 1631067 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Jul 1;89(13):5847-51 15123587 - Genome Res. 2004 May;14(5):901-7 18370092 - Methods Mol Biol. 2008;439:1-18 1359641 - Science. 1992 Oct 30;258(5083):818-21 20084631 - Electrophoresis. 2010 Jan;31(2):309-14 17487184 - Nat Protoc. 2006;1(4):1965-70 16928277 - BMC Genomics. 2006;7:216 16786504 - Hum Mutat. 2006 Jul;27(7):603-14 15942023 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(10):e91 |
| References_xml | – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B13 doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-188-8_1 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B21 doi: 10.1101/gr.1949704 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B5 doi: 10.1002/humu.20324 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B10 doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.13.5847 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B32 doi: 10.1097/PAT.0b013e32834e411e – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B37 doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90063-7 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B12 doi: 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B24 doi: 10.1093/nar/gni089 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B44 doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e31818e55a2 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B17 doi: 10.1002/humu.20341 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B45 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl646 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B27 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-159 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B11 doi: 10.1093/nar/28.2.e7 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B34 doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-216 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B23 doi: 10.1002/pd.1667 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B3 doi: 10.1002/elps.200600674 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B26 doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61799-3 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B38 doi: 10.1038/nature09792 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B33 doi: 10.1093/nar/gnh069 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B8 doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65254-6 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B36 doi: 10.1126/science.1359641 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B25 doi: 10.1093/molehr/gah101 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B29 doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.03.022 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B30 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl336 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B46 doi: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxh008 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B18 doi: 10.1002/elps.200900325 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B22 doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.326 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B6 doi: 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63092-1 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B1 doi: 10.1375/twin.8.4.346 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B31 doi: 10.1186/1472-6750-5-24 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B39 doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1006304 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B43 doi: 10.1586/14737159.4.4.465 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B4 doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000177801.60121.05 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B19 doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.08.007 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B14 doi: 10.1073/pnas.082089499 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B40 doi: 10.1002/humu.21260 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B9 doi: 10.1016/0888-7543(92)90147-K – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B20 doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2008.070155 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B35 doi: 10.1038/labinvest.3700495 – ident: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-217-B7 doi: 10.1101/gr.816903 – reference: 19366436 - BMC Genomics. 2009;10:159 – reference: 16786504 - Hum Mutat. 2006 Jul;27(7):603-14 – reference: 2498321 - J Biol Chem. 1989 May 25;264(15):8935-40 – reference: 1631067 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Jul 1;89(13):5847-51 – reference: 17487184 - Nat Protoc. 2006;1(4):1965-70 – reference: 10606675 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jan 15;28(2):e7 – reference: 16928277 - BMC Genomics. 2006;7:216 – reference: 15225094 - Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2004 Jul;4(4):465-77 – reference: 16176719 - Twin Res Hum Genet. 2005 Aug;8(4):346-52 – reference: 19290880 - Biochem Soc Trans. 2009 Apr;37(Pt 2):450-3 – reference: 21307931 - Nature. 2011 Feb 10;470(7333):187-97 – reference: 17234643 - Bioinformatics. 2007 Mar 15;23(6):657-63 – reference: 3260274 - J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(6):583-91 – reference: 17278176 - Prenat Diagn. 2007 Apr;27(4):297-302 – reference: 16168060 - BMC Biotechnol. 2005;5:24 – reference: 18370092 - Methods Mol Biol. 2008;439:1-18 – reference: 18786630 - Genomics. 2008 Dec;92(6):452-6 – reference: 9916922 - Am J Pathol. 1999 Jan;154(1):83-95 – reference: 18403606 - J Mol Diagn. 2008 May;10(3):249-57 – reference: 16193324 - Hum Genet. 2005 Dec;118(3-4):504-7 – reference: 15942023 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(10):e91 – reference: 16619243 - Hum Mutat. 2006 May;27(5):496-503 – reference: 22157688 - Pathology. 2012 Jan;44(1):33-41 – reference: 15820046 - Reprod Biomed Online. 2005 Mar;10(3):376-80 – reference: 16319690 - Diagn Mol Pathol. 2005 Dec;14(4):203-12 – reference: 17170740 - Lab Invest. 2007 Jan;87(1):75-83 – reference: 1359641 - Science. 1992 Oct 30;258(5083):818-21 – reference: 7501463 - Nucleic Acids Res. 1995 Nov 11;23(21):4407-14 – reference: 1639399 - Genomics. 1992 Jul;13(3):718-25 – reference: 19521335 - MMWR Recomm Rep. 2009 Jun 12;58(RR-6):1-37; quiz CE-1-4 – reference: 15123587 - Genome Res. 2004 May;14(5):901-7 – reference: 20551152 - N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 22;363(4):301-4 – reference: 11959976 - Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Apr 16;99(8):5261-6 – reference: 15322224 - Mol Hum Reprod. 2004 Oct;10(10):767-72 – reference: 20084631 - Electrophoresis. 2010 Jan;31(2):309-14 – reference: 14695315 - Am J Pathol. 2004 Jan;164(1):23-33 – reference: 15475419 - Biostatistics. 2004 Oct;5(4):557-72 – reference: 19092437 - Genet Med. 2008 Dec;10(12):851-68 – reference: 15150323 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(9):e71 – reference: 17702060 - Electrophoresis. 2007 Aug;28(16):2812-7 – reference: 20506564 - Hum Mutat. 2010 Jun;31(6):631-55 – reference: 16687226 - Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Feb 14;166(1):35-41 – reference: 16698960 - Nucleic Acids Res. 2006;34(9):e68 – reference: 12695328 - Genome Res. 2003 May;13(5):954-64 |
| SSID | ssj0017825 |
| Score | 2.1909432 |
| Snippet | Background
Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification... Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification (WGA)... Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome Amplification... BACKGROUND: Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome... Abstract Background Genotyping assays often require substantial amounts of DNA. To overcome the problem of limiting amounts of available DNA, Whole Genome... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral biomedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 217 |
| SubjectTerms | Adult Analysis Animal Genetics and Genomics Array-based comparative genomic hybridization Biomedical and Life Sciences Comparative Genomic Hybridization Cystic fibrosis Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator - genetics Cytogenetics DNA DNA - analysis DNA Copy Number Variations DNA Probes - metabolism DNA sequencing Female Gene amplification Gene mutations Genes Genetic aspects Genetic research Genome, Human Genomes Genomics Genotype Humans Instrument industry Life Sciences Male Microarrays Microbial Genetics and Genomics Middle Aged Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques Nucleotide sequencing Physiological aspects Plant Genetics and Genomics Proteomics Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Research Article Sequence Analysis, DNA TaqMan copy number assay Whole genome amplification Young Adult |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3daxQxEA9SEHwRv73aShRBKyyXzecu-HJWaxXsg1rsgxCy2UQLdU-6d8j9987sx9mcFl98WthM2M3MZPObzcwvhDwRTjMfWZkZIQ3-rXJZ4YTIAq8KVcfIKo7Fye-P9OGxfHeiTi4c9YU5YT09cK-4qamNCYBiCh0xlJMFi6WIBrNzWMmLrsyXlWwMpob9A1j3VFdXZPKMQ0QwblAWerq-l-UCrmaj0v0sWaA6Hv8_v9YXlqvNVMqN_dRumTq4Qa4P-JLO-nHdJFdCc4tc7U-cXN0mX_bXBM19_SWdR_oTz8ilyNb6PVCHKeYRgCl99vnNbI--OppRALZ02QZ62nRSixUWWVGA3W5F699ZR3fI8cHrT_uH2XDAQlZprRZZdNL4WOkguefSA7hxwQVWVLLkXipRVyLXAQK0XHrAZcpVIUpEiGDSKKH1Ltlq5k24T6isAQjwyhsAFJIzXZUmcK1cUTskhJcT8iLRsv3Rk2lYpLdOW2CmWTSSRSPZXMDVTMh0NIr1A3k5nqFxZrsgptB_6bG37jE-63LZl2jn5J26G-CIdnBE-y9HnJDH6CUWSTUazNr56pZta99-_GBnCrACqI3Dk54OQnEO7-_dUAQBSkQerkRyJ5GEWe-T5kejM1pswlS5JsyXLQySGySVYyBzr3fO9cAAayuID9WEmMRtk5GnLc3pt450XEgGUBp6Ph8d3A5fu_ZSvW7_D70-INfAp3ifnrdDthbny7ALQHBRPezm_C8sB1G5 priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: SpringerLink Journals (ICM) dbid: U2A link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3da9UwFA9zIvgifu-6KVEEnVDWpvlowZfrdE7BPagX9yCEJE3mYLZjvRe5_73npO3VXrcHnwrNCW1yzkl-Sc75hZDnuZGpC2mZqJwr3K0ySWHyPPHMFqIKIbUMk5M_HcnDGf94LI43CBtyYWK0-3AkGUfq6NaF3MtgGE0YoPsky-GprpHrAlbu6IwzNl2dHMCMJ4bjyEtqreW1n42mo8ja_-_Y_NfktB44uXZ6Gielg9vkVo8m6bRT_x2y4eu75EZ3v-TyHvm-v6Jj7rItaRPoL7wRlyI3609PDQaUB4Ch9OW399Nd-vZoSgHG0kXr6WkdpeZLTKmiALLNklZ_Yozuk9nBu6_7h0l_nUJipRTzJBiuXLDSc-YYdwBljDc-LSwvmeMir2yeSQ_LsYw7QGHCWB844kFQYOBQ-oBs1k3ttwjlFUz7zDoF8IGzVNpSeSaFKSqD9O98Ql6Pelmfd9QZGsmsxyWgYo1K0qgkneXwVBOyNyhFu56qHG_MONNxyVLIS2rsrmoM37pa9g3qefRP8UVzcaJ7f9WqUsoDeC5kwB0EXqShzIPCoLC0ZEUxIc_QSjRSaNQYo3NiFm2rP3z5rKcCkAF0G4MvveiFQgP_70yf8gCdiKxbI8mdkST4uBsVPx2MUWMRBsbVvlm00EimkEIuBZmHnXGuGgbIWsBqUEyIGpntqOXjkvr0R6QYz3kKwBlqvhoMXPdjW3tlvz76H-FtchNsh3VBdztkc36x8I8B3s3tk-jPvwHL-kUS priority: 102 providerName: Springer Nature |
| Title | Characterization of whole genome amplified (WGA) DNA for use in genotyping assay development |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2164-13-217 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655855 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1027681207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-217 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC3403925 https://doaj.org/article/7d77e99986f0469480f93f7088909288 |
| Volume | 13 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3db9MwELfYJiReEN90jMogJBhSWOI4diKBUFY2BtIqNKjoA5LlJPaY1CXQtIL-99zloyWle-ClUetLE_vu7J_tu58JeeZr4abWjRzpc4mrVdoJte87hiVhkFnrJgyTk0-H4mTEP46D8So9umnAcuPUDs-TGk0nr37_XLwFh39TOXwoDjzoYB0GuN_xfLjKLbID45LAqdgpX-0pwFgYVLlGjXS7abnhH9ay3yedQavi9v-3B_9rCFsPr1zbY62GruNb5GaDOWlcG8ltcs3kd8j1-hTKxV3ybbAkba5zMmlh6S88N5cig-uloRrDzi2AVfri6_t4n74bxhTALp2Xhl7kldRsgYlXFKC4XtBsFYl0j4yOj74MTpzm0AUnESKYOVZzmdpEGM5SxlMAPNpo44YJj1jKAz9LfE8YmLR5PAWsFujEWI6oEdRsOZTeJ9t5kZuHhPIMwAFLUgkggzNXJJE0TAQ6zDSSxPMeed1pZfWjJthQSHndLQHvU6gkhUpSng9X2SMHrVJU2hCa47kaE1VNbEKx4Y795R3ts66WPUQ9d96p-qGYnqvGq5XMpDQAsUNhcZ2Bh66NfCsxdMyNWBj2yFO0EoVEGzlG8pzreVmqD5_PVBwAfoBmY_Ck542QLeD9U90kRkAjIjdXR3KvIwk9QdopftIao8IiDJ_LTTEvoZJMItGcCzIPauNcVgzwdwBzxqBHZMdsOzXvluQX3ysicp-7AK_hzpetgavWga9s193_0MEjcgNMh9WReXtkezadm8eAAWdJn2zJseyTncOj4acz-DYQg361ntKvnB4-Ryz-A1TeVio |
| linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1Lb9QwELbKVgguiDcLBQxCgiJFTWzHdiQuoVC2S7sH2ooekCwnsdtKbYK6u0L775nJYyFLe-AUKR4rsWfs-WzPfCbkDbcyzH2YBIoLhbtVNtCW88CxTMeF92HGMDl5fyJHR2J8HB-vEdblwtTR7t2RZD1T18Nay60IptGAAboPIg5PdYOsa8AiYkDW03R8MF6eHYDPi7sDySvqrWS2n_ccUs3b_-_s_Jd7Wg2dXDk_rd3Szl1yp8WTNG0M4B5Zc-V9crO5YXLxgPzYXhIyN_mWtPL0F96JS5Gd9cJRiyHlHoAofff9S7pJP01SCkCWzqeOnpW11GyBSVUUYLZd0OJPlNFDcrTz-XB7FLQXKgSZlPEs8Fao3GfSCZYzkQOYsc66UGciYbmIeZHxSDpYkEUiBxwW28x5gYgQVOgFlD4ig7Iq3RNCRQGOn2W5AgAhWCizRDkmY6sLiwTwYkg-9HrZ_GzIMwzSWfdLQMkGlWRQSSbi8FRDstUpxeQtWTnemXFu6kWLllfU2FzW6L51vexH1HPvn-oX1eWJaUesUYVSDuCzlh73EIQOfcK9wrCwMGFaD8lrtBKDJBolRumc2Pl0anYPvpk0BmwA3cbgS29bIV_B_-e2TXqATkTerZ7kRk8SRnneK37VGaPBIgyNK101n0IjmUISuRBkHjfGuWwYYOsY1oPxkKie2fZa3i8pz05rknEuQoDOUPN9Z-Cmnd2m1_br0_8RfklujQ7398ze7uTrM3Ib7Ig1IXgbZDC7nLvnAPZm2Yt2dP8Gt0lJVQ |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV1Lb9QwELagCMQF8WahBYOQoEjRJo5fkXpZtiwtjxUCKnpAspzELpVKUjVZof33zOSxkKU9cIoUj5XYM7Y_e2Y-E_I8tjLMfJgEKuYKT6tsoG0cB46lWuTehynD5OSPc7l3wN8disPuwK3qo917l2Sb04AsTUU9Ps19O8S1HEcwpQYMkH4QxfBUl8kVjgsfOmvldOVFgNVP9K7Jc2qt5bifDJamhsH_33n6r4VqPYhyzZPaLFCzm-RGhyzppDWFW-SSK26Tq-1dk8s75Pt0Rc3cZl7S0tNfeDsuRZ7Wn45aDC73AEnpy29vJ9t0dz6hAGnponL0uGik6iWmV1EA3HZJ8z_xRnfJwezN1-le0F2tEKRSijrwlqvMp9JxljGeAayxzrpQpzxhGRdxnsaRdLA1i3gGiEzY1HmO2BCU6TmU3iMbRVm4B4TyHCAASzMFUIKzUKaJckwKq3OLVPB8RHYGvWxOWxoNg8TWwxJQt0ElGVSSiWJ4qhEZ90oxWUdbjrdnnJhm-6LlOTW2VzX6b10s-xr1PPin5kV5dmS6sWtUrpQDIK2lx9MErkOfxF5hgFiYMK1H5BlaiUE6jQLjdY7soqrM_pfPZiIAJUC3MfjSi07Il_D_me3SH6ATkYFrILk5kITxng2Kn_bGaLAIg-QKVy4qaCRTSCcXgsz91jhXDQOULWBnKEZEDcx20PJhSXH8o6Ebj3kIIBpqvuoN3HTzXHVhvz78H-En5Nqn3Zn5sD9__4hcBzNibSzeJtmozxZuC1BfnT5uhvZvbVVMKw |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Characterization+of+whole+genome+amplified+%28WGA%29+DNA+for+use+in+genotyping+assay+development&rft.jtitle=BMC+genomics&rft.au=Han%2C+Tao&rft.au=Chang%2C+Ching-Wei&rft.au=Kwekel%2C+Joshua+C&rft.au=Chen%2C+Ying&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.issn=1471-2164&rft.eissn=1471-2164&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=217&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2F1471-2164-13-217&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1186_1471_2164_13_217 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2164&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2164&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2164&client=summon |