Cargando…
A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer
BACKGROUND: Selected microRNAs (miRNAs) that are abnormally expressed in the serum of patients with lung cancer have recently been proposed as biomarkers of this disease. The measurement of circulating miRNAs, however, requires a highly reliable quantification method. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPC...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27538962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7 |
_version_ | 1782448781343588352 |
---|---|
author | Campomenosi, Paola Gini, Elisabetta Noonan, Douglas M. Poli, Albino D’Antona, Paola Rotolo, Nicola Dominioni, Lorenzo Imperatori, Andrea |
author_facet | Campomenosi, Paola Gini, Elisabetta Noonan, Douglas M. Poli, Albino D’Antona, Paola Rotolo, Nicola Dominioni, Lorenzo Imperatori, Andrea |
author_sort | Campomenosi, Paola |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Selected microRNAs (miRNAs) that are abnormally expressed in the serum of patients with lung cancer have recently been proposed as biomarkers of this disease. The measurement of circulating miRNAs, however, requires a highly reliable quantification method. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is the most commonly used method, but it lacks reliable endogenous reference miRNAs for normalization of results in biofluids. When used in absolute quantification, it must rely on the use of external calibrators. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a recently introduced technology that overcomes the normalization issue and may facilitate miRNA measurement. Here we compared the performance of absolute qPCR and ddPCR techniques for quantifying selected miRNAs in the serum. RESULTS: In the first experiment, three miRNAs, proposed in the literature as lung cancer biomarkers (miR-21, miR-126 and let-7a), were analyzed in a set of 15 human serum samples. Four independent qPCR and four independent ddPCR amplifications were done on the same samples and used to estimate the precision and correlation of miRNA measurements obtained with the two techniques. The precision of the two methods was evaluated by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the four independent measurements obtained with each technique. The CV was similar or smaller in ddPCR than in qPCR for all miRNAs tested, and was significantly smaller for let-7a (p = 0.028). Linear regression analysis of the miRNA values obtained with qPCR and ddPCR showed strong correlation (p < 0.001). To validate the correlation obtained with the two techniques in the first experiment, in a second experiment the same miRNAs were measured in a larger cohort (70 human serum samples) by both qPCR and ddPCR. The correlation of miRNA analyses with the two methods was significant for all three miRNAs. Moreover, in our experiments the ddPCR technique had higher throughput than qPCR, at a similar cost-per-sample. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of serum miRNAs performed with qPCR and ddPCR were largely concordant. Both qPCR and ddPCR can reliably be used to quantify circulating miRNAs, however, ddPCR revealed similar or greater precision and higher throughput of analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4991011 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49910112016-08-20 A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer Campomenosi, Paola Gini, Elisabetta Noonan, Douglas M. Poli, Albino D’Antona, Paola Rotolo, Nicola Dominioni, Lorenzo Imperatori, Andrea BMC Biotechnol Methodology Article BACKGROUND: Selected microRNAs (miRNAs) that are abnormally expressed in the serum of patients with lung cancer have recently been proposed as biomarkers of this disease. The measurement of circulating miRNAs, however, requires a highly reliable quantification method. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is the most commonly used method, but it lacks reliable endogenous reference miRNAs for normalization of results in biofluids. When used in absolute quantification, it must rely on the use of external calibrators. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a recently introduced technology that overcomes the normalization issue and may facilitate miRNA measurement. Here we compared the performance of absolute qPCR and ddPCR techniques for quantifying selected miRNAs in the serum. RESULTS: In the first experiment, three miRNAs, proposed in the literature as lung cancer biomarkers (miR-21, miR-126 and let-7a), were analyzed in a set of 15 human serum samples. Four independent qPCR and four independent ddPCR amplifications were done on the same samples and used to estimate the precision and correlation of miRNA measurements obtained with the two techniques. The precision of the two methods was evaluated by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the four independent measurements obtained with each technique. The CV was similar or smaller in ddPCR than in qPCR for all miRNAs tested, and was significantly smaller for let-7a (p = 0.028). Linear regression analysis of the miRNA values obtained with qPCR and ddPCR showed strong correlation (p < 0.001). To validate the correlation obtained with the two techniques in the first experiment, in a second experiment the same miRNAs were measured in a larger cohort (70 human serum samples) by both qPCR and ddPCR. The correlation of miRNA analyses with the two methods was significant for all three miRNAs. Moreover, in our experiments the ddPCR technique had higher throughput than qPCR, at a similar cost-per-sample. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of serum miRNAs performed with qPCR and ddPCR were largely concordant. Both qPCR and ddPCR can reliably be used to quantify circulating miRNAs, however, ddPCR revealed similar or greater precision and higher throughput of analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4991011/ /pubmed/27538962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Article Campomenosi, Paola Gini, Elisabetta Noonan, Douglas M. Poli, Albino D’Antona, Paola Rotolo, Nicola Dominioni, Lorenzo Imperatori, Andrea A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title | A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title_full | A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title_fullStr | A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title_short | A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer |
title_sort | comparison between quantitative pcr and droplet digital pcr technologies for circulating microrna quantification in human lung cancer |
topic | Methodology Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4991011/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27538962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT campomenosipaola acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT ginielisabetta acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT noonandouglasm acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT polialbino acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT dantonapaola acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT rotolonicola acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT dominionilorenzo acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT imperatoriandrea acomparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT campomenosipaola comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT ginielisabetta comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT noonandouglasm comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT polialbino comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT dantonapaola comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT rotolonicola comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT dominionilorenzo comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer AT imperatoriandrea comparisonbetweenquantitativepcranddropletdigitalpcrtechnologiesforcirculatingmicrornaquantificationinhumanlungcancer |