SuperScript error rate?
Dr. Duncan Clark
d_clark at nospam.demon.co.uk
Tue Mar 6 04:11:52 EST 2001
In article <ehovig-99B521.00413706032001 at nntp.uio.no>, the eminent
Eivind Hovig at DNR wrote
> have not been able to locate any
>references where anybody have performed systematic assays of this.
Look for references by Kinkel. I'm sure he has real figures.
>reason of my interest are the various amplification techniques for
>microarray analysis and their reliability, and also the lower limit of
>biologically relevant mutation analysis based on small amounts of
>naturally occuring mRNA (in vivo). Given the flow of "enhanced" reverse
>transcriptases recently, this is an even more pressing question for me.
I very much doubt the 'enhanced' RT's are any better in the fidelity
dept. Given that microarray labelling kits are incorporating Cy-dUTP/C-
dCTP or amino-allyl dUTP, the mutation rate may be quite different (say
due to stearic hindrance by the Cy analogues) to using straight dNTPs. I
suspect it is something that, like you say, could be being overlooked.
On another note, do you subscribe to the microarray listserv via
yahoogroups? I am supposedly subscribed but have had nothing at all for
at least a week, other than the e-mail saying I am subscribed.
The problem with being on the cutting edge is that you occasionally get
sliced from time to time....
More information about the Methods