Cargando…
A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions
BACKGROUND: For many analytical methods the efficiency of DNA amplification varies across the genome and between samples. The most affected genome regions tend to correlate with high C + G content, however this relationship is complex and does not explain why the direction and magnitude of effects v...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22950736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-455 |
_version_ | 1782246062400995328 |
---|---|
author | Veal, Colin D Freeman, Peter J Jacobs, Kevin Lancaster, Owen Jamain, Stéphane Leboyer, Marion Albanes, Demetrius Vaghela, Reshma R Gut, Ivo Chanock, Stephen J Brookes, Anthony J |
author_facet | Veal, Colin D Freeman, Peter J Jacobs, Kevin Lancaster, Owen Jamain, Stéphane Leboyer, Marion Albanes, Demetrius Vaghela, Reshma R Gut, Ivo Chanock, Stephen J Brookes, Anthony J |
author_sort | Veal, Colin D |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: For many analytical methods the efficiency of DNA amplification varies across the genome and between samples. The most affected genome regions tend to correlate with high C + G content, however this relationship is complex and does not explain why the direction and magnitude of effects varies considerably between samples. RESULTS: Here, we provide evidence that sequence elements that are particularly high in C + G content can remain annealed even when aggressive melting conditions are applied. In turn, this behavior creates broader ‘Thermodynamically Ultra-Fastened’ (TUF) regions characterized by incomplete denaturation of the two DNA strands, so reducing amplification efficiency throughout these domains. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides a mechanistic explanation for why some genome regions are particularly difficult to amplify and assay in many procedures, and importantly it also explains inter-sample variability of this behavior. That is, DNA samples of varying quality will carry more or fewer nicks and breaks, and hence their intact TUF regions will have different lengths and so be differentially affected by this amplification suppression mechanism – with ‘higher’ quality DNAs being the most vulnerable. A major practical consequence of this is that inter-region and inter-sample variability can be largely overcome by employing routine fragmentation methods (e.g. sonication or restriction enzyme digestion) prior to sample amplification. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3469336 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-34693362012-10-12 A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions Veal, Colin D Freeman, Peter J Jacobs, Kevin Lancaster, Owen Jamain, Stéphane Leboyer, Marion Albanes, Demetrius Vaghela, Reshma R Gut, Ivo Chanock, Stephen J Brookes, Anthony J BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: For many analytical methods the efficiency of DNA amplification varies across the genome and between samples. The most affected genome regions tend to correlate with high C + G content, however this relationship is complex and does not explain why the direction and magnitude of effects varies considerably between samples. RESULTS: Here, we provide evidence that sequence elements that are particularly high in C + G content can remain annealed even when aggressive melting conditions are applied. In turn, this behavior creates broader ‘Thermodynamically Ultra-Fastened’ (TUF) regions characterized by incomplete denaturation of the two DNA strands, so reducing amplification efficiency throughout these domains. CONCLUSIONS: This model provides a mechanistic explanation for why some genome regions are particularly difficult to amplify and assay in many procedures, and importantly it also explains inter-sample variability of this behavior. That is, DNA samples of varying quality will carry more or fewer nicks and breaks, and hence their intact TUF regions will have different lengths and so be differentially affected by this amplification suppression mechanism – with ‘higher’ quality DNAs being the most vulnerable. A major practical consequence of this is that inter-region and inter-sample variability can be largely overcome by employing routine fragmentation methods (e.g. sonication or restriction enzyme digestion) prior to sample amplification. BioMed Central 2012-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3469336/ /pubmed/22950736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-455 Text en Copyright ©2012 Veal 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 Veal, Colin D Freeman, Peter J Jacobs, Kevin Lancaster, Owen Jamain, Stéphane Leboyer, Marion Albanes, Demetrius Vaghela, Reshma R Gut, Ivo Chanock, Stephen J Brookes, Anthony J A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title | A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title_full | A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title_fullStr | A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title_full_unstemmed | A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title_short | A mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
title_sort | mechanistic basis for amplification differences between samples and between genome regions |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3469336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22950736 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-13-455 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vealcolind amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT freemanpeterj amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT jacobskevin amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT lancasterowen amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT jamainstephane amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT leboyermarion amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT albanesdemetrius amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT vaghelareshmar amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT gutivo amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT chanockstephenj amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT brookesanthonyj amechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT vealcolind mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT freemanpeterj mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT jacobskevin mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT lancasterowen mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT jamainstephane mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT leboyermarion mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT albanesdemetrius mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT vaghelareshmar mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT gutivo mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT chanockstephenj mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions AT brookesanthonyj mechanisticbasisforamplificationdifferencesbetweensamplesandbetweengenomeregions |