Review



fluidigm genotyping method  (fluidigm)


Bioz Verified Symbol fluidigm is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol fluidigm manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 90
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    fluidigm fluidigm genotyping method
    Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose <t>genotyping.</t> The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).
    Fluidigm Genotyping Method, supplied by fluidigm, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 9 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/fluidigm genotyping method/product/fluidigm
    Average 90 stars, based on 9 article reviews
    fluidigm genotyping method - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    90/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly"

    Article Title: A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly

    Journal: BMC Genomics

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-513

    Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose genotyping. The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose genotyping. The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).

    Techniques Used: Clone Assay, Whole Genome Amplification, Derivative Assay, Software, Amplification, Expressing, Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction

    Genotyping by Fluidigm BioMarkTM IFC Dynamic ArrayTM quantitative PCR. (A) WGA-FLDMqPCR: WGA-amplified DNA and qPCR. Left: double-strand DNA (dsDNA) accumulation curve as a function of the number of cycles. Right: melting curve of the final product. Green: positive control (duck DNA). Red: a hybrid which was positive (containing duck DNA corresponding to the marker tested). Blue: a negative hybrid. Yellow: negative control (hamster DNA). (B) Pre-ampFLDMqPCR: non-amplified DNA, a pre-amplification step with a mix of the 96 primer pairs for the 96 markers tested in the Fluidigm BioMarkTM assay and qPCR. The same markers and controls are used as in (A) . The sensitivity is higher in (B) , with a lower number of cycles necessary for detection of duck DNA. The negative control and the hybrid not containing duck DNA amplify at a much higher number of cycles and the non-specific products amplified can easily be distinguished by their different melting temperature values (right). In both experiments, no amplification was obtained from water (data not shown).
    Figure Legend Snippet: Genotyping by Fluidigm BioMarkTM IFC Dynamic ArrayTM quantitative PCR. (A) WGA-FLDMqPCR: WGA-amplified DNA and qPCR. Left: double-strand DNA (dsDNA) accumulation curve as a function of the number of cycles. Right: melting curve of the final product. Green: positive control (duck DNA). Red: a hybrid which was positive (containing duck DNA corresponding to the marker tested). Blue: a negative hybrid. Yellow: negative control (hamster DNA). (B) Pre-ampFLDMqPCR: non-amplified DNA, a pre-amplification step with a mix of the 96 primer pairs for the 96 markers tested in the Fluidigm BioMarkTM assay and qPCR. The same markers and controls are used as in (A) . The sensitivity is higher in (B) , with a lower number of cycles necessary for detection of duck DNA. The negative control and the hybrid not containing duck DNA amplify at a much higher number of cycles and the non-specific products amplified can easily be distinguished by their different melting temperature values (right). In both experiments, no amplification was obtained from water (data not shown).

    Techniques Used: Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction, Amplification, Positive Control, Marker, Negative Control

    Genotyping 8 no hit markers using three different genotyping strategies
    Figure Legend Snippet: Genotyping 8 no hit markers using three different genotyping strategies

    Techniques Used:

    Comparison of marker retention with the three genotyping techniques
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of marker retention with the three genotyping techniques

    Techniques Used: Marker



    Similar Products

    fluidigm genotyping method  (fluidigm)
    90
    fluidigm fluidigm genotyping method
    Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose <t>genotyping.</t> The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).
    Fluidigm Genotyping Method, supplied by fluidigm, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/fluidigm genotyping method/product/fluidigm
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    fluidigm genotyping method - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier
    genotypic concordance between basevar-stitch method and direct genotyping by fluidigm ifc  (fluidigm)
    90
    fluidigm genotypic concordance between basevar-stitch method and direct genotyping by fluidigm ifc
    Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose <t>genotyping.</t> The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).
    Genotypic Concordance Between Basevar Stitch Method And Direct Genotyping By Fluidigm Ifc, supplied by fluidigm, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/genotypic concordance between basevar-stitch method and direct genotyping by fluidigm ifc/product/fluidigm
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    genotypic concordance between basevar-stitch method and direct genotyping by fluidigm ifc - by Bioz Stars, 2026-02
    90/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose genotyping. The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).

    Journal: BMC Genomics

    Article Title: A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-513

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Estimations of duck genome retention in the RH clones. A: retention frequencies of thirty-one microsatellite markers and four scaffold markers before (white) and after (grey) whole genome amplification. The test was done on the 90 selected hybrids by conventional Agarose genotyping. The expected chromosome locations of the markers (given in brackets) are derived from the chicken/duck comparative FISH mapping and a duck genetic map (Marie-Etancelin et al., in prep) for the microsatellite markers and according to comparative genomic data given by the Narcisse software for the scaffold markers. B : Retention frequencies of thirty-nine scaffolds markers obtained using three different genotyping strategies. The thirty-nine scaffold markers were genotyped using either (i) the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping (blue: WGA-PCR), (ii) the non amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark gene expression dynamic array (green: Pre-ampFLDMqPCR) or (iii) the amplified panel and genotyping with the Fluidigm BioMark TM IFC Dynamic Array TM genotyping by quantitative PCR without any pre-amplification step (purple: WGA-FLDMqPCR). The markers are distributed along the X axis from the lowest to the highest retention frequencies obtained by the first method (the amplified panel with conventional agarose genotyping WGA-PCR in blue).

    Article Snippet: We tested the Fluidigm genotyping method on WGA DNA and on standard DNA, with a pre-amplification step using a mix of all primers of the 96 markers analyzed together in a run [ ].

    Techniques: Clone Assay, Whole Genome Amplification, Derivative Assay, Software, Amplification, Expressing, Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction

    Genotyping by Fluidigm BioMarkTM IFC Dynamic ArrayTM quantitative PCR. (A) WGA-FLDMqPCR: WGA-amplified DNA and qPCR. Left: double-strand DNA (dsDNA) accumulation curve as a function of the number of cycles. Right: melting curve of the final product. Green: positive control (duck DNA). Red: a hybrid which was positive (containing duck DNA corresponding to the marker tested). Blue: a negative hybrid. Yellow: negative control (hamster DNA). (B) Pre-ampFLDMqPCR: non-amplified DNA, a pre-amplification step with a mix of the 96 primer pairs for the 96 markers tested in the Fluidigm BioMarkTM assay and qPCR. The same markers and controls are used as in (A) . The sensitivity is higher in (B) , with a lower number of cycles necessary for detection of duck DNA. The negative control and the hybrid not containing duck DNA amplify at a much higher number of cycles and the non-specific products amplified can easily be distinguished by their different melting temperature values (right). In both experiments, no amplification was obtained from water (data not shown).

    Journal: BMC Genomics

    Article Title: A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-513

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Genotyping by Fluidigm BioMarkTM IFC Dynamic ArrayTM quantitative PCR. (A) WGA-FLDMqPCR: WGA-amplified DNA and qPCR. Left: double-strand DNA (dsDNA) accumulation curve as a function of the number of cycles. Right: melting curve of the final product. Green: positive control (duck DNA). Red: a hybrid which was positive (containing duck DNA corresponding to the marker tested). Blue: a negative hybrid. Yellow: negative control (hamster DNA). (B) Pre-ampFLDMqPCR: non-amplified DNA, a pre-amplification step with a mix of the 96 primer pairs for the 96 markers tested in the Fluidigm BioMarkTM assay and qPCR. The same markers and controls are used as in (A) . The sensitivity is higher in (B) , with a lower number of cycles necessary for detection of duck DNA. The negative control and the hybrid not containing duck DNA amplify at a much higher number of cycles and the non-specific products amplified can easily be distinguished by their different melting temperature values (right). In both experiments, no amplification was obtained from water (data not shown).

    Article Snippet: We tested the Fluidigm genotyping method on WGA DNA and on standard DNA, with a pre-amplification step using a mix of all primers of the 96 markers analyzed together in a run [ ].

    Techniques: Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction, Amplification, Positive Control, Marker, Negative Control

    Genotyping 8 no hit markers using three different genotyping strategies

    Journal: BMC Genomics

    Article Title: A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-513

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Genotyping 8 no hit markers using three different genotyping strategies

    Article Snippet: We tested the Fluidigm genotyping method on WGA DNA and on standard DNA, with a pre-amplification step using a mix of all primers of the 96 markers analyzed together in a run [ ].

    Techniques:

    Comparison of marker retention with the three genotyping techniques

    Journal: BMC Genomics

    Article Title: A duck RH panel and its potential for assisting NGS genome assembly

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-513

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of marker retention with the three genotyping techniques

    Article Snippet: We tested the Fluidigm genotyping method on WGA DNA and on standard DNA, with a pre-amplification step using a mix of all primers of the 96 markers analyzed together in a run [ ].

    Techniques: Marker