2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2009.03.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative effects of position and type of single mismatch on single base primer extension

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
125
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 127 publications
(135 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
4
125
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, an A-to-G mismatch combined with a C-to-T mismatch at the 3Ј terminus would not change the primer's overall GC content and would have only a minor effect on its T m , but such a change would inhibit the amplification reaction substantially. Our results point to a smaller dCq as a single mismatch is moved farther from the 3Ј end, a finding in accord with previous studies (2,4 ). The effect of position was greatest for mismatches at the 3Ј terminus, and steric hindrance due to the purine/purine or pyrimidine/pyrimidine context of these mismatches might play some role in impeding qPCR amplification.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…For example, an A-to-G mismatch combined with a C-to-T mismatch at the 3Ј terminus would not change the primer's overall GC content and would have only a minor effect on its T m , but such a change would inhibit the amplification reaction substantially. Our results point to a smaller dCq as a single mismatch is moved farther from the 3Ј end, a finding in accord with previous studies (2,4 ). The effect of position was greatest for mismatches at the 3Ј terminus, and steric hindrance due to the purine/purine or pyrimidine/pyrimidine context of these mismatches might play some role in impeding qPCR amplification.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…In the IGF1Ea assay, the sense primer was placed over the insertion point ensuring that the last two bases fitted downstream of the insertion point. This creates a single base mismatch between IGF1Ea and IGF1Ec in the 3 0 end (.GGA-3 0 in IGF1Ea versus.GTA-3 0 in IGF1Ec), which should inhibit amplification from IGF1Ec cDNA (30). Indeed, there was no amplification of the 49 bp larger IGF1Ec isoform in the IGF1Ea assay, based on agarose gel and melting curve analysis.…”
Section: Muscle Mrna Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…All of the HOPE experiments for each sample were performed in triplicate. The parameters of the HOPE analysis, such as the specificity of group-specific primers, working annealing temperature of the single-base primer extension reaction, and multiplexing analysis, were experimentally determined as described previously (19,20).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%