Cargando…

Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants

BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of GMOs on the global market the maintenance of European GMO regulations is becoming more complex. For the analysis of a single food or feed sample it is necessary to assess the sample for the presence of many GMO-targets simultaneously at a sensitive level. Se...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ujhelyi, Gabriella, van Dijk, Jeroen P, Prins, Theo W, Voorhuijzen, Marleen M, Angeline Van Hoef, AM, Beenen, Henriek G, Morisset, Dany, Gruden, Kristina, Kok, Esther J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22257760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-12-4
_version_ 1782222641058283520
author Ujhelyi, Gabriella
van Dijk, Jeroen P
Prins, Theo W
Voorhuijzen, Marleen M
Angeline Van Hoef, AM
Beenen, Henriek G
Morisset, Dany
Gruden, Kristina
Kok, Esther J
author_facet Ujhelyi, Gabriella
van Dijk, Jeroen P
Prins, Theo W
Voorhuijzen, Marleen M
Angeline Van Hoef, AM
Beenen, Henriek G
Morisset, Dany
Gruden, Kristina
Kok, Esther J
author_sort Ujhelyi, Gabriella
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of GMOs on the global market the maintenance of European GMO regulations is becoming more complex. For the analysis of a single food or feed sample it is necessary to assess the sample for the presence of many GMO-targets simultaneously at a sensitive level. Several methods have been published regarding DNA-based multidetection. Multiplex ligation detection methods have been described that use the same basic approach: i) hybridisation and ligation of specific probes, ii) amplification of the ligated probes and iii) detection and identification of the amplified products. Despite they all have this same basis, the published ligation methods differ radically. The present study investigated with real-time PCR whether these different ligation methods have any influence on the performance of the probes. Sensitivity and the specificity of the padlock probes (PLPs) with the ligation protocol with the best performance were also tested and the selected method was initially validated in a laboratory exchange study. RESULTS: Of the ligation protocols tested in this study, the best results were obtained with the PPLMD I and PPLMD II protocols and no consistent differences between these two protocols were observed. Both protocols are based on padlock probe ligation combined with microarray detection. Twenty PLPs were tested for specificity and the best probes were subjected to further evaluation. Up to 13 targets were detected specifically and simultaneously. During the interlaboratory exchange study similar results were achieved by the two participating institutes (NIB, Slovenia, and RIKILT, the Netherlands). CONCLUSIONS: From the comparison of ligation protocols it can be concluded that two protocols perform equally well on the basis of the selected set of PLPs. Using the most ideal parameters the multiplicity of one of the methods was tested and 13 targets were successfully and specifically detected. In the interlaboratory exchange study it was shown that the selected method meets the 0.1% sensitivity criterion. The present study thus shows that specific and sensitive multidetection of GMO targets is now feasible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3271032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32710322012-02-03 Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants Ujhelyi, Gabriella van Dijk, Jeroen P Prins, Theo W Voorhuijzen, Marleen M Angeline Van Hoef, AM Beenen, Henriek G Morisset, Dany Gruden, Kristina Kok, Esther J BMC Biotechnol Research Article BACKGROUND: With the increasing number of GMOs on the global market the maintenance of European GMO regulations is becoming more complex. For the analysis of a single food or feed sample it is necessary to assess the sample for the presence of many GMO-targets simultaneously at a sensitive level. Several methods have been published regarding DNA-based multidetection. Multiplex ligation detection methods have been described that use the same basic approach: i) hybridisation and ligation of specific probes, ii) amplification of the ligated probes and iii) detection and identification of the amplified products. Despite they all have this same basis, the published ligation methods differ radically. The present study investigated with real-time PCR whether these different ligation methods have any influence on the performance of the probes. Sensitivity and the specificity of the padlock probes (PLPs) with the ligation protocol with the best performance were also tested and the selected method was initially validated in a laboratory exchange study. RESULTS: Of the ligation protocols tested in this study, the best results were obtained with the PPLMD I and PPLMD II protocols and no consistent differences between these two protocols were observed. Both protocols are based on padlock probe ligation combined with microarray detection. Twenty PLPs were tested for specificity and the best probes were subjected to further evaluation. Up to 13 targets were detected specifically and simultaneously. During the interlaboratory exchange study similar results were achieved by the two participating institutes (NIB, Slovenia, and RIKILT, the Netherlands). CONCLUSIONS: From the comparison of ligation protocols it can be concluded that two protocols perform equally well on the basis of the selected set of PLPs. Using the most ideal parameters the multiplicity of one of the methods was tested and 13 targets were successfully and specifically detected. In the interlaboratory exchange study it was shown that the selected method meets the 0.1% sensitivity criterion. The present study thus shows that specific and sensitive multidetection of GMO targets is now feasible. BioMed Central 2012-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3271032/ /pubmed/22257760 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-12-4 Text en Copyright ©2012 Ujhelyi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ujhelyi, Gabriella
van Dijk, Jeroen P
Prins, Theo W
Voorhuijzen, Marleen M
Angeline Van Hoef, AM
Beenen, Henriek G
Morisset, Dany
Gruden, Kristina
Kok, Esther J
Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title_full Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title_fullStr Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title_full_unstemmed Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title_short Comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for GM plants
title_sort comparison and transfer testing of multiplex ligation detection methods for gm plants
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3271032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22257760
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6750-12-4
work_keys_str_mv AT ujhelyigabriella comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT vandijkjeroenp comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT prinstheow comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT voorhuijzenmarleenm comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT angelinevanhoefam comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT beenenhenriekg comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT morissetdany comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT grudenkristina comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants
AT kokestherj comparisonandtransfertestingofmultiplexligationdetectionmethodsforgmplants