Chapter title |
Minimum Information Necessary for Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 2 |
Book title |
Quantitative Real-Time PCR
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, April 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-0733-5_2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-0732-8, 978-1-4939-0733-5
|
Authors |
Johnson G, Nour AA, Nolan T, Huggett J, Bustin S, Gemma Johnson, Afif Abdel Nour, Tania Nolan, Jim Huggett, Stephen Bustin, Johnson, Gemma, Nour, Afif Abdel, Nolan, Tania, Huggett, Jim, Bustin, Stephen |
Abstract |
The MIQE (minimum information for the publication of quantitative real-time PCR) guidelines were published in 2009 with the twin aims of providing a blueprint for good real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay design and encouraging the comprehensive reporting of qPCR protocols. It had become increasingly clear that variable pre-assay conditions, poor assay design, and incorrect data analysis were leading to the routine publication of data that were often inconsistent, inaccurate, and wrong. The problem was exacerbated by a lack of transparency of reporting, with the details of technical information inadequate for the purpose of assessing the validity of published qPCR data. This had, and continues to have serious implications for basic research, reducing the potential for translating findings into valuable applications and potentially devastating consequences for clinical practice. Today, the rationale underlying the MIQE guidelines has become widely accepted, with more than 2,200 citations by March 2014 and editorials in Nature and related publications acknowledging the enormity of the problem. However, the problem we now face is rather serious: thousands of publications that report suspect data are populating and corrupting the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It will be some time before the many contradictions apparent in every area of the life sciences are corrected. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Austria | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Russia | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 94 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 19 | 19% |
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
Other | 15 | 15% |
Unknown | 17 | 17% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 33% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 21 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
Chemistry | 5 | 5% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
Other | 11 | 11% |
Unknown | 21 | 21% |