This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Digital polymerase chain reaction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment. Further details are available on the course page. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please replace the subhead
The reason for this change is that the technology is called droplet digital PCR, as cited in reference 4, which is: http://www.bio-rad.com/en-us/applications-technologies/droplet-digital-pcr-ddpcr-technology
Cg.wikawikawow ( talk) 15:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Cg.wikawikawow
Is this the same as emulsion PCR or are they distinct techniques? -- Dan| (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There are several issues with the neutrality of this piece and with some unsubstantiated claims made in the article. I have specifically flagged passages that I thought were in need of adjusting. The last section of this article makes subjective and uncited claims about a particular brand of Digital PCR machine:
These particular sentences (and others flagged and explained in the main text) should be specifically made more neutral and/or linked to valid references. Due to these passages, I am nominating this post to be checked for its neutrality. Tevyeguy ( talk) 22:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
In exploring the neutrality of the article, we noticed this review already on the page. In regards to at least the third point and possibly the fourth, we might be able to support the claims, as the authors of the review have no immediately visible connection to Dr. Christopher M. Hindson (the pioneer of the technique) or Biorad (the company making money of it). This may or may not rest concerns about neutrality entirely, but it might be able to help. AMF2718 ( talk) 23:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I spotted one neutrality issue raised in the article as it stands currently. That was the statement that the technique (not a particular brand) was more accurate and precise. This has been well documented, measured and peer reviewed in the article I added a reference for Pinheiro et al, 2012. I worked for Bio-Rad and specialized in digital PCR for 5 years ( AntoBeck ( talk) 05:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)).
Currently, the wikipedia page is sparse and could benefit from more citations. We will want to incorporate the work of Hindson et. al., which focuses on a new version of the ddPCR technique. We will focus on a specific version of emulsion PCR, wherein 20,000 oil droplets are made to run PCR individually and will thoroughly analyze the positive and negative aspects of this technique. We will also incorporate the aspect of endpoint versus real-time methods and why ddPCR is considered “digital.” Proposed edits will be made here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMF2718 ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this article would benefit from listing other dPCR methods/options that build off the basic scientific principles section. Specifically, I would like to propose the addition of a short section on BEAMing, which is another emulsion dPCR method, linking back to the main BEAMing page. This is the current draft of the blurb:
The article has been flagged to be checked for neutrality and I think it would benefit from including other dPCR methods to help that. Ashley at Sysmex Inostics ( talk) 20:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
New companies and new instruments I have added 2 new companies and changed a lot of the partition number to read "approximately" because those numbers are never exactly attained. I used to work in the digital PCR industry for Bio-Rad for 5 years. ( AntoBeck ( talk) 05:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC))
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please remove the advert template form the "History" section.
The reason for this change is that the History section has been rewritten to remove promotional content and to rely on neutral sources.
Cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 20:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 08:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Notes
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Please remove the advert template form the "Applications" section.
The reason for this change is that the Applications section has been rewritten to remove promotional content and to rely on neutral sources. You will see that I am paid to represent Bio-Rad, but I removed sources written by them and their employees. I know that editors with a COI are urged not to edit Wikipedia themselves, but I hope my edits appear neutral and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. If you have any questions, please refer to my talk page.
Cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Please consult assigning editor
{{
request edit}}
template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes
to |ans=no
. Notes
On July 23, 2019, I requested to the user who initially added the "advert" template to the Applications section, DadOfBeanAndBug, that the template be removed, but this user has not responded to me. Therefore, I kindly request that another user please remove the template.
If you have any questions, please refer to my talk page.
Cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 3:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Template removed
Spintendo
15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Cglife.bmarcus, I apologize, I haven't checked my messages in a while and didn't see your edit request. The rewritten Applications section looks 100% better, and I agree (retroactively) with removing the advert template. Thanks a lot!
DadOfBeanAndBug ( talk) 18:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
User:DadOfBeanAndBug, no worries! I appreciate your response, even if it's a tad late ;-). I'm glad I was able to make the sound less biased in more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.
Cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 13:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Spintendo thank you for removing the neutrality template at the top of the article. Could you please remove the advert template in the "Applications" section, now that it is moot? Thank you! Cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 15:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Regards, Spintendo 22:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The material added to the article was done so without the review of an independent editor. |
Spintendo, Thank you for your concern about maintaining neutrality and avoiding bias on this page. I share the same concern about ensuring Wikipedia remains a neutral source of information for the world. I rewrote two sections of this article that had templates on them suggesting that they were written like advertisements. My goal was to make these sections neutral, and I feel my edits were validated by your removal of these templates. You'll notice that I heavily sourced all the statements regarding dPCR's applications and capabilities, I did not make any unsubstantiated claims about its benefits, and I did not include links to the websites of any companies that have a financial stake in the subject nor any articles written by employees of these companies. Despite my relationship to Bio-Rad, I included information about their competitors in the "History" section. I welcome you or other editors to discuss the validity of the COI template with me on my talk page.
User:cglife.bmarcus ( talk) 16:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
In the first sentence of this Article, should this method also be termed "ddPCR" to indicate "digital droplet"? Here is a preprint from UIC: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.18.159434v1.full Charles Juvon ( talk) 12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The subsection "Absolute quantification" is in direct contrast to the text on the principles, where it says: "Different from many peoples's belief that dPCR provides absolute quantification, digital PCR uses statistical power to provide relative quantification." plus example. This does not make sense to a reader unless either the subsection "Absolute quantification" further explains under what conditions or with which limitations absolute quantification by dPCR is possible, or the claim that absolute quantification is not possible is removed or edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.245.221.67 ( talk) 14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to write the same thing. This looks like a contradiction in the article.
Marchino61 ( talk) 01:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Concetration -> Concentration 61.16.68.170 ( talk) 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)