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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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