Back

Reporting quality of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods in scientific publications

Drude, N. I.; Baselly, C.; Gazda, M. A.; May, J.-N.; Tienken, L. B.; Abbasi, P.; Weissgerber, T.; Burgess, S.

2024-12-07 genetics
10.1101/2024.12.04.626769 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reproducibility is a significant concern in scientific research and complex methods like quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) demand stringent reporting standards to ensure that the methods are reproducible, data are sound, and conclusions are trustworthy. Although the MIQE (Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments) guidelines were introduced in 2009 to improve qPCR reporting, a 2013 study identified ongoing deficiencies that hinder reproducibility. To further investigate the transparency and completeness of qPCR reporting, we systematically assessed articles published in the top 20 journals in genetics and heredity (n=186) and plant sciences (n=246) that used qPCR. Our analysis revealed frequent omissions and inadequate specification of critical information necessary for evaluating and replicating qPCR experiments. RNA integrity, along with assessment methods and instruments used to assess it, are seldom reported. Although primer sequences are often disclosed, names and accession numbers of housekeeping genes are frequently omitted. Additionally, essential details about RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR, such as kit names, catalog numbers, and reagent information, are often missing. Our findings underscore the urgent need for improved reporting practices in qPCR experiments, emphasizing quality controls, detailed descriptions of reagents and materials, and greater analytical transparency. Addressing these reporting deficiencies is crucial for enhancing the reproducibility and evaluating the trustworthiness of qPCR research. Potential solutions include encouraging authors to cite protocols published in online repositories, providing reporting templates, or developing automated tools to check reporting compliance.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.1%
2
Plant Methods
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.4%
3
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
4
BioTechniques
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.7%
6
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.2%
7
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
9
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.4%
10
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
11
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
12
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
13
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
14
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
16
STAR Protocols
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.3%
18
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
19
Current Protocols
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
20
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
171 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
21
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
22
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
24
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
27
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
28
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
29
Aquaculture
29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
30
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%