3 replies to this topic

[scuba]

Incidence of bcr‑abl fusion transcripts in healthy individuals

https://www.spandido...om/mmr/9/4/1271

 

"The present study screened for the presence of bcr‑abl transcripts in the blood of a group of healthy individuals using a sensitive‑nested reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‑PCR) assay."

 

"... the incidence of p210 translocation was higher in males (12.2%) compared with females (7.7%) and males were 2.4 times more likely to have the translocation. A significant incidence was also observed in adults compared with children, where adults were 6 times more likely to have the translocation. "

 

[cmljax]

So would the PCR on the blood for these individuals be undetectable or would it show some really small number like .00001%?  It might say this in the study, but to be honest, I'm too lazy to read the whole thing.

[scuba]

Undetectable is "undetectable" by the limit of the assay. So these individuals who make up the study were "detectable". Unfortunately, it doesn't report what the level of detection (at my first read). Perhaps others can find it.

[Trey]

This is not a new issue.  Same old GIGO:

 

"...However, there may still be variation due to laboratory to laboratory variation, assay sensitivity and experimental errors, of which false positives may be a predominant issue, particularly with a highly sensitive method, such as nested RT-PCR."