Potent and Specific Genetic Interference by Double-Stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans
Nature, 1998 · paper · Biomedicine
A summary document of the 1998 study of RNA interference in the worm C. elegans. It reports that double-stranded RNA silences genes more potently and specifically than single-stranded RNA, works at very low doses, persists in progeny, and degrades target mRNA.
Checked: PDF from upcollege.ac.in, fetched 6 Oct 2026. Page numbers are those of that PDF.
1 finding
Substance Section 2.3 says "only a few molecules of dsRNA per cell were enough to trigger gene silencing", but Section 3.3 gives "The lowest dsRNA dose tested (~500 molecules per cell)". The two statements give conflicting minimum per-cell doses.
- p. 1 Section 2.3, first bullet
only a few molecules of dsRNA per cell
- p. 2 Section 3.3, third bullet
lowest dsRNA dose tested (~500 molecules per cell)
- p. 2 3.3 RNAi Efficiency Testing
The lowest dsRNA dose tested (~500 molecules per cell) still caused significant gene silencing.
- p. 1 2.3
only a few molecules of dsRNA per cell were enough to trigger gene silencing
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: I checked both statements on the page images (p1 §2.3 bullet 1; p2 §3.3 bullet 3). If the lowest dose tested was ~500 molecules per cell, the document has no tested dose that shows 'a few' molecules per cell are enough. The document does not separate a per-affected-cell figure from a per-cell figure anywhere, so the conflict is internal and does not depend on outside knowledge. Only the authors can say which figure they meant. One reviewer said the original 1998 paper reported 'a few molecules per affected cell'. That rests on outside knowledge, and the verdict does not rely on it.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
2 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording Section 2.5 says the in situ result "suggested that dsRNA does not just block translation but actively degrades target mRNA", while Section 3.4 says the same result "demonstrated that RNAi works by degrading mRNA rather than simply blocking translation". The two sections state the same finding with different certainty.
- p. 1 Section 2.5, second bullet
This suggested that dsRNA does not just block translation but actively degrades target mRNA.
- p. 2 Section 3.4, second bullet
This demonstrated that RNAi works by degrading mRNA rather than simply blocking translation.
Judge's note: I checked both sentences on the page images (p1 §2.5; p2 §3.4). Both describe the same in situ hybridization finding of reduced or absent mRNA. In 3.4 the inference is stated more strongly than in 2.5. This is a wording inconsistency and an overstatement in 3.4. The data are not affected.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Section 3.1 gives the fem-1 phenotype as "fem-1 (sex determination) → Loss results in female sterility." This misdescribes the loss-of-function phenotype, which is feminization into spermless females.
- p. 2 Section 3.1, third bullet
Loss results in female sterility
- p. 2 Section 3.1, third bullet
fem-1 (sex determination) → Loss results in female sterility.
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: loss of fem-1 turns XX hermaphrodites into spermless females that can be fertilized if mated. On page 2 (§3.1 bullet 3) the text reads 'female sterility'. That wording suggests the females themselves are infertile, which does not fit the 'sex determination' role given in the same line. This is a wording issue, so severity is S3.
Second check: another model agreed