Talk:Polymerase chain reaction

message: There appears a concept called "Tm" in this article, but it is neither linked to an article with such title, or explained in this article itself.
Please, define this term in its own article (and link to it), or define it here.
Thank you.
Pentalis
21 april 2:01 GMT -4:00 winter time.
* It stands for melting temperature, often abbreviated Tm in calculations. Not sure why it is Tm rather than Mt, though capital T usually stands for temperature. CheekyMonkey 12:49, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fixed to Tm. 203.218.136.155 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They don't get replicated, and hence drop out of significance entirely. (Among the millions of DNA molecules that eventually get made.) Its just a diagram to illustrate the concept, the actual reason is in the article.  -- Natalinasmpf 13:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old comments 

message: There's a new program being released (under the GNU GPL) to perform primer specificity searches.
http://genome.cs.hi.is/cattagat/
If this looks useful to anyone then perhaps it can be added to the external links. I don't feel right doing it myself since I'm one of the authors of the software. - Haukurth 15:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CATTAGAT

message: I don't see how one can attribute the invention of PCR to Khorana.  An invention (at least a patentable one)  requires a reduction to practice, which he certainly never did.  There is no reference cited for this either.  In addition, the theromostabile polymerase was not known to Mullis at the time of his invention.  Mullis got the Nobel Prize for the invention, not Khorana.  I am therefore removing the attribution to Khorana.DonSiano 17:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it History of polymerase chain reaction if you do it, to be consistent with other articles 203.218.136.155 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Har Gobind Khorana 

message: Is it considered acceptable to use the phrase "PCR reaction" or is this considered redundant?  The phrase appears a couple of times in this article.  (RAS syndrome and the associated discussion page provide an interesting treatment of the issue; a Google search for "'PCR reaction' and 'RAS syndrome'" also reveals some interesting hits).--GregRM 15:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is redundant, always remove reaction coz this is an encyclopedia 203.218.136.155 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the replies...I removed references to "PCR reaction" yesterday.--GregRM 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "PCR reaction" is not only acceptable, but also the appropriate wording when the sentence context requires the word "reaction". Here is why: The term "PCR" is a name, i.e the name of a significant and widely known method, not a mere abbreviation or a shorthand for the syntagm "polymerase chain reaction". The latter is simply the term describing any technology that would utilize polymerase in one exponential process, as opposed to Polymerase Chain Reaction, which is one of the two  accepted names (mutual aliases) of the known and invented process of an enormous significance. Were "PCR" only a written shorthand, then we would read it using all three full words, but we don't. As we see from this, the word reaction is neither repeated nor redundant. NenadZILIĆ (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "PCR reaction" 

message: I disagree strongly with the phrase that Taq is used in current practice. Taq is with current standards a bad polymerase and it is not necesary to use Taq. Taq has no proofreading activity and its processivity is not as good as other polymerases, so it is my opinion that wikipedia should take an independent stance and not  link PCR to Taq
I also made a very imortant change. It is not nucleotides that are used in the reaction but deoxynucleotides-triphosphate
I think you mean deoxynucleoside-triphosphate. There is no such thing as a nucleotide-triphosphate, since the definition of a nucleotide is a nucleoside + phosphates. 130.243.248.239 14:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taq is not a polymerase that is used always 

message: I was told that Mullis was driving his car and that he was going on vacation with his (first) wife and that he got the idea that he just had to try, so he turned the car around to the lab...
Is the motorcycle source reliable?
Several theories abound, ranging from the drugs story to the possibility that Kary Mullis merely reduced to practice the idea that had been given to him by a co-worker who had attended a seminar discussing tRNA synthesis in a manner similar to what we now know as PCR.  Another rumour is that Kary Mullis was not going to be named as an inventor on the patents (the glory instead passing to David Gelfand, a co-inventor on the Taq patents, and Randy Saiki), and came to work at Cetus one day with a gun, demanding to be named as the lead inventor.  All rumour though, and not suitable for the main page. 159.92.30.11 12:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bicycle or Car? 

message: "Primers are short, artificial DNA strands — often not more than fifty and usually only 18 to 25 base pairs long nucleotides that are complementary to the beginning and end of the DNA fragment to be amplified."
How can a nucleotide be 18-25 base pairs long, this needs to be rephrased.
: removed nucleotide. 203.218.136.155 14:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: possible rephrasing needed

message: Can someone explain why the DNA code for ile is AT(A/C/G) when the RNA code is AU(A/C/U)? I thought RNA is complementary to DNA so shouldn't the DNA be TA(A/G/T).
Explanation:
If you recall, it is the antisense (noncoding) strand of the DNA that is used as the template strand for the mRNA, meaning that the actual coding DNA strand and the mRNA produced during transcription will be identical except for the G->U nucleotides. Here's a website with a few more diagrams to help: Transcription Amasa walker III 03:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ile code

message: Why to put such a bad electrophoresis gel photo in the article? It is quite noisy and really bad. There are billions around for example mine. Does this have a some significance?
--Araks 13:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I work in a lab as well, so I can provide a better image.--Roland Deschain 18:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok.  I've added a gel from my own research.  It's reasonably clean and produces one specific band for each reaction.--Roland Deschain 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a good example of PCR elecrtrophoregram 

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: I propose moving the primer design information to Primer (molecular biology). I also propose creating a new page PCR optimization and moving all the PCR optimization information there as well. -Madeleine 00:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too big! 

message: I think the history should go higher, but after the basic description of PCR. What do people think about rearranging the article into this form:
*The polymerase chain reaction (description of basic protocol/process)
:*sample procedure
*History of PCR
:*patent wars
*Applications of PCR
*PCR optimization and variations (many modifications, eg hot-start PCR, have been developed as optimizations, so I think the two subsections belong together)
:*optimization
:*modifications to the technique
I'm open to different orderings, of course. Mainly I'd like to move the optimization and variations away from the core "this is how PCR works" section. Madeleine 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Madeleine, I do not feel very strongly about any re-arrangements. To me it seems that the practical parts almost deserve their own articles with "PCR" covering the basic principle, application, and history. The major shortcomings of the article were convoluted and redundant text and misconceptions creating mystification, which thankfully have largely disappeared, but may crop up again every now and then. I'd suggest you go on with any changes you feel are necessary--I'll offer any suggestions if necessary and time permitting. Many thanks! Malljaja 19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring article 

message: I've rearranged things quite a bit. Some references have been added, in the process, but please appreciate that adding references for already existing material is pretty tedious.
The list of PCR variations has been moved to the bottom, since it's pretty long and lacks narrative order. It may be possible to cluster it a bit. Some are PCR optimization, meant to reduce amplification of incorrect product (Hot-start PCR, Nested PCR, touchdown PCR). Methylation-specific PCR is related to allele-specific PCR (it's basically an allele-specific PCR where the "allele" is a uracil vs. methylcytosine). Both inverse PCR and TAIL-PCR are used to isolate unknown sequence next to known sequence (as I understand it)... but TAIL-PCR is also somewhat like nested PCR...  -- Madeleine 04:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes have been made 

message: *Better reference for Kary Mullis's LSD use
Is his own autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. Here is a NYTimes review of the autobiography that mentions the LSD use and a site that has copied an excerpt from the book. http://www.csp.org/chrestomathy/dancing_naked.html http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/11/reviews/981011.11teresit.html Kevin143 08:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSD 

message: I suggest an addition to the "Variations on the basic PCR technique" section as follows:
RT-PCR: (Real-Time PCR) is a powerful and rapid technique for nucleic acid amplification. The accumulation of specific products in a reaction is monitored continuously during cycling. This is usually achieved by monitoring changes in fluorescence within the PCR tube. Touchstone42 13:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Real-time PCR is already among the different techniques (under quantitative PCR) that appear under "Variations..." Have a look how it fits in there. If you talk about fluorescence, it needs to be specified from where the fluorescence originates. Also, its main use is quantification; your lead sentence basically describes PCR and doesn't mention quantification. Please note that RT-PCR is the common acronym for reverse-transcription PCR, so it would be inappropriate to use it here (qPCR or qRT-PCR (for quantitative reverse-transcription PCR) are the most commonly used abbreviations). Malljaja 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've likewise seen real-time PCR abbreviated as RT PCR in the literature. Some researchers have even dubbed reverse-transcription real-time PCR as RT-RT PCR, which sounds a wee bit like a stutter though. Ultimately, context is important, and acronyms often follow local conventions in the literature (i.e. full name followed by a, sometimes whimsical, acronym in parenthesis). However, as this entry gives a comprehensive overview of PCR and its different twigs and branches, simply calling real-time PCR "RT PCR" would be inappropriate, as it collides with "RT PCR" as used for reverse-transcription PCR. "Variations..." mentions the different naming conventions and conflicts, and it also touches on the issue that quantitative PCR methods are not always based on real-time PCR. Perhaps this section can be improved so that some of the naming and other issues can be put to bed. Malljaja 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real-Time PCR 

message: This article does not meet the Good Article criteria at this time. Please see this page for the complete review. Dr. Cash 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a first stab at improving the article, mainly copy editing (i.e., boldly paring back unnecessary and convoluted wording), and inserting of refs as per the review. I've not done much work on the "History" section yet. This entry has slowly been improving, but it still needs come cleaning up--its previous length seemed to have invited some redundancy, manifested as overlinking and lack of reference to other sections, and some disorganization to creep in. Making it more succinct might help keep it more stable and to the point. Some of the the figures (Fig 3 in particular) look fairly poorly, and the text needs some more polishing to make it more accessible to the layman audience. I'm going to leave it for now, to give others the opportunity to chip in where they see fit. Malljaja 16:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I agree that the article is too long, however I feel there's a bigger problem.
The article is much too technical for the average reader.  There are far too many scientific terms.  Reading the article I found myself quickly needing to either follow the links or grab a dictionary.
A wikipedia article shouldn't require additional reference materials in order for the general reader to gain a grasp of the basics of PCR (or any other topic for that matter; I could easily write an article on any number of Roman Emperors that would leave the general reader feeling just as out of depth as I do with this one).
In my opinion this article needs a rewrite to make it more accessible for readers not intimately familiar with molecular biology and related disciplines.
This article Kinetic energy penetrator on a ballistic technology does a much better job, again in my opinion, in explaining the subject without a blizzard of recondite terminology.
Therefore I've added the "cleanup-jargon" tag.
PainMan 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that there's a fair amount of specialized language in the article. It would help however if you were more specific--which sections are in your opinion most affected? I had a look with an eye on jargon, and the section that I see most plagued by it is the "Uses of PCR" section. Unfortunately the article you chose as a positive example (the KEP) lacks citations, raising the question of how much of the true complexity of the subject it reflects. Similar to other areas in the natural sciences--quantum mechanics come to mind (see e.g., Quantum computer, which if scaled to weather phenomena represents a class 5 hurricane in terms of arcane terminology)--articles dealing with molecular biology may not unlock themselves on first reading, and likely require some additional reading in other related entries. Sequence alignment is a featured article covering a fairly complex subject, so perhaps it could be the guiding light. Malljaja 12:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical for the general reader 

message: Since the 'R' in PCR is for the word 'Reaction' its a tautology to say PCR Reaction.  This means Polymerase Chain Reaction Reaction.  I suggest the removal of all such occurrence within the text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  You're most welcome to be bold and remove them yourself.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and changed the ones I found. Notably, sometimes "PCR reaction" is used to refer to the mixture in the tube and in some cases it I think it's preferable to say "PCR mixture" rather than simply saying "PCR" (which refers more to the process than the mixture in the tube).  Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PCR "Reaction"

message: Wow, those are impressive! Very cool images of old machines. I think maybe they should go in the history section though. PaleWhaleGail also added a pic of a modern machine to the thermal cycler page, I think that would be more appropriate to the principle/procedure section. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you like the picture of the old machine.  I've seen a few of them on the way to the skip.  Young ones are shocked when they realise what it is.  I wonder what they'd think of having to add kelnow fragment every cycle!  If you want to put the three water bath machine in the history section, i think it might work well.  Agesworth (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCR machine pics 

message: There is currently a simplified version of this article, Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified), which is being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified). - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Closed - deleted as unnecessary, at least for the nonce. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified) 

message: "Two primers, which are complementary to the DNA regions at the 5' (five prime) or 3' (three prime) ends of the DNA region."
This is false. Both primers are complementaty to 3' end, beacause they must have orientation 5'->3' to be primers. The main difference between them is the strand that they are complemantary to. One bind with sense, and the other with antisense strand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.173.184.64 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching this--I've modified this section to reflect that fact. Malljaja (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect sentence 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&safe=strict&q=polymerase%20chain%20reaction%20standard%20operating%20procedures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
* http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&safe=strict&q=polymerase%20chain%20reaction%20standard%20operating%20procedures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=sw
* http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=polymerase+chain+reaction+compliant&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
* http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&q=polymerase%20chain%20reaction%20compliant&sa=N&tab=sw
* http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=polymerase+chain+reaction+compliance&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
* http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&q=polymerase%20chain%20reaction%20compliance&sa=N&tab=sw
--222.64.222.45 (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infos about its [[Standard operating procedure|SOP]]s and compliance issues..... 

message: * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?as_q=polymerase+chain+reaction+inactivation&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
--222.64.222.45 (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infos about its [[inactivation]]..... 

message: The article mentions this many times, but it doesn't seem particularly clear to me. Does it mean the DNA alone is amplified, or that specific parts of the genome can be chosen to be amplified specifically? If it's the latter (which it seems to be referring to), how? I've spent the last 20 minutes looking for an explanation, but unless I'm missing something obvious, there isn't one. 86.183.150.203 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective DNA isolation 

message: I would like to take note of the reverting of this page, removing my contribution to the history section, about the discovery of PCR through the usage of LSD. Malljaja reverted the article for the following reason: "This entry is about PCR not K Mullis.". My contribution was about the  rest of the story behind the discovery, which is conspicuously left out, not about Mullis, per se: "Years after his work on the development of PCR, Mullis admitted in private and publically that his experimentation with LSD was a major influence on his work. During a symposium held for centenarian Albert Hofmann, "Hofmann revealed that he was told by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences."[51] When questioned about this during an interview for BBC's Psychedelic Science documentary, Mullis stated "What if I had not taken LSD ever; would I have still invented PCR?" He replied, "I don't know. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it."[52]"
If this is to be deleted, you may as well also delete this part, which also includes facts about Mullis' life (and PCR as well):
"When Mullis developed the PCR in 1983, he was working in Emeryville, California for Cetus Corporation, one of the first biotechnology companies. There, he was responsible for synthesizing short chains of DNA. Mullis has written that he conceived of PCR while cruising along the Pacific Coast Highway one night in his car.[49] He was playing in his mind with a new way of analyzing changes (mutations) in DNA when he realized that he had instead invented a method of amplifying any DNA region through repeated cycles of duplication driven by DNA polymerase."
Perhaps the formatting (essentially a copy and paste from the article on Mullis) is badly done, but I really believe the fact that PCR was discovered as a direct result of LSD should be included in the history section of the article. Any suggestions on how to make this happen?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr0798 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not the first trying to add this info to this entry. Time permitting I can try to locate the relevant discussion that ensued at that time. Suffice it to say for now, there's not much information in this bit you added—K Mullis is a very colourful character, and having this info in his entry is fine. However, most scientists who are familiar with the history of PCR are very aware that the technique was neither "invented" by Mullis nor the result of LSD-induced hallucinations. As it says in the entry, other researchers (notably Kleppe and colleagues) had laid the theoretical groundwork, and the advent of heat-stable polymerases set in motion technological advances that led to PCR—Mullis' only achievement in this was to milk a great story out of it, one that has gained some notoriety but not found wide acceptance in the field of molecular biology. Malljaja (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of circumstances of discovery - LSD 

message: The applications of PCR article is short enough to be merged into the main PCR article, and would add relevant info to the main article. TYelliot | Talk  | Contribs 15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to take the long view and upgrade the other article and allow the knowledge base to grow out Wikidgood (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Applications of PCR]] 

message: The captions of the first 2 photos have a common problem, stating (typically) :
"A strip of eight PCR tubes, each containing a 100 μl reaction mixture"
I think this is incorrect or misleading (depending on interpretation) because:
(1) The scale of the human hands clearly indicates a single tube unit would be far less than 100ml in volume)
(2) Typically a single tube such as shown is 0.2, 0.5 or 1.0ml
This raises the question, was the caption intended to describe the volume of a single tube in the 8 tube set or the 8 tube set volume in aggregate?
In any case, the total would be far less than 100ml so this should be corrected and I hope the original content editor could go back to the source to verify the correct volumes or replace the photos with equivalents of known volume. 
 Thank you.    Xiao-zi : 小紫 15:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Xiao-zi, the captions actually refer to a microlitre (μl), which is one thousandth of a millilitre (mL).  100 μl is 0.1 mL, and looks consistent with the photographs. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph Captions in Error or Misleading 

message: An electrical engineering team was looking at creating slightly bent artificial DNA.  PCR is used to make many copies, which are covered in a thin gold layer.  These are useful as circular polarizers in optical fibers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.135.25 (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCR application in electrical engineering 

message: I'm an electrical engineer with very little knowledge of Biology. I read through the Procedure section, and it made sense to me; I don't think the Vagueness tag is warranted.
Smithderek2000 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness Tag on Procedure Section 

message: It may be helpful to enhance this page by mentioning what different % Agarose can provide to the clarity for different sizes of genes that are run through a gel electrophoresis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arklipp (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, but as PCR is a very big topic, I think such information is better contained at Gel electrophoresis and Agarose gel electrophoresis.  Note PCR is not always followed by electrophoresis, nor is it always used for amplifying genes. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agarose Percentage 

message: I made a new one (see German Wikipedia). The present one shows elongation of the PCR beyond the template, which does not occur. I was technically not able to replace the scheme myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiWiki (talk • contribs) 19:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The German version seems much better- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/PCR-Schema-v2.svg/842px-PCR-Schema-v2.svg.png . Eaberry (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new figure and corrected the issues. See above (Talk:Polymerase_chain_reaction#Picture_under_"Procedure").  Enzoklop (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please replace erroneous scheme 

message: Should REP-PCR have a discussion? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitive Extragenic Palindromic Sequence-Based PCR Analysis 

message: Hi there,
apparently there exists a term "Ct value" relative to PCR testing (as in www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html), but i can't find anything about that in here (the term is used, but unexplained, in the COVID-19 testing article). This NY Times article has me understand that "Ct" stands for "cycle threshold", apparently "the number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus". Shouldn't this term be present and explained in here ? —Jerome Potts (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The method used for COVID-testing is variation of the standard PCR method: Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction. The term Ct value is explained in that article (see Real-time_polymerase_chain_reaction#Modeling.  Enzoklop (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ct value" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Why is there no mention of the use of PCR in Covid 10 virus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.71.11  (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because there is nothing special or unique about the PCR use in amplifying the SARS-CoV-2 sequence. — kashmīrī TALK 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of Covid 19 

message: PCR Test 'diagnostic' is a misleading statement that make Wikipedia and authors liable for FRAUD and possibly contributing to higher crimes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis    = doesn't mention CovID-19 testing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing#Reverse_transcription_polymerase_chain_reaction_test 
= should attempt to be impartial and balance 'claims' with other REPORTS and information such as https://walkinverse.com/dr-kary-mullis-slams-fauci/ https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/why-covid-19-testing-tragic-waste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction   = list PCR Test as a detection of pathogens in nucleic acid tests for the diagnosis of infectious diseases. Samsonia8800 (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2021 -  

message: The source cited for the sentence about using PCR for infectious diseases caused by bacteria and viruses is an article that seems to only discuss bacterial infections in veterinary settings. Should the sentence be reworded to remove “viruses” or is there another source that can be cited? 64.224.250.45 (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infectious disease source 

message: The section on Patent Disputes is very misleading.  Patent expiry information from an authoritative source is available.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnelt (talk • contribs) 16:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lights on but nobody home?  Locking an entry is one thing but such autocratic decisions require greater attention to flexibility and challenge. Tom Donnelly (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to edit Patent expiry information with expiration confirmation 

message: Is it for Ag or AB 2001:16A2:FE2D:2800:132:CA84:863B:7A02 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pcr 

message: At step 5 of the image, the direction of the red primer is incorrect. It should be 3' 5', not 5' 3'. 
121.162.195.157 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that! Thank you - I am right now developing a very simple software model of this process and in straining to understand the whole sense/anti-sense thing I was totally thrown by that labeling. 140.32.108.251 (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the "Tucker PCR" image used "Procedure" section.  

message: In the first sentence, please remove
 billions of copies (complete copies or partial copies) of a specific
and add
 billions of copies (complete or partial) of a specific
There's no need for three "copies" in one sentence, since the meaning is unambiguous. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy Editing--IAmChaos 12:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022