Cargando…
Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR
INTRODUCTION: For the relative quantification of isoform expression, RT-qPCR has been the gold standard for over a decade. More recently, digital PCR is becoming widely implemented, as it is promised to be more accurate, sensitive and less affected by inhibitors, without the need for standard curves...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5634819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29021971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2017.09.001 |
_version_ | 1783270165718237184 |
---|---|
author | Van Heetvelde, Mattias Van Loocke, Wouter Trypsteen, Wim Baert, Annelot Vanderheyden, Katrien Crombez, Brecht Vandesompele, Jo De Leeneer, Kim Claes, Kathleen B.M. |
author_facet | Van Heetvelde, Mattias Van Loocke, Wouter Trypsteen, Wim Baert, Annelot Vanderheyden, Katrien Crombez, Brecht Vandesompele, Jo De Leeneer, Kim Claes, Kathleen B.M. |
author_sort | Van Heetvelde, Mattias |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: For the relative quantification of isoform expression, RT-qPCR has been the gold standard for over a decade. More recently, digital PCR is becoming widely implemented, as it is promised to be more accurate, sensitive and less affected by inhibitors, without the need for standard curves. In this study we evaluated RT-qPCR versus RT-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for the relative quantification of isoforms in controls and carriers of the splice site mutation BRCA1 c.212+3A>G, associated with increased expression of several isoforms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RNA was extracted from EBV cell lines of controls and heterozygous BRCA1 c.212+3A>G carriers. Transcript-specific plasmids were available to determine the efficiency, precision, reproducibility and accuracy of each method. RESULTS: Both ddPCR and RT-qPCR were able to accurately quantify all targets and showed the same LOB, LOD and LOQ; also precision and reproducibility were similar. Both techniques have the same dynamic range and linearity at biologically relevant template concentrations. However, a significantly higher cost and workload was required for ddPCR experiments. CONCLUSIONS: Our study recognizes the potential and validity of digital PCR but shows the value of a highly optimized qPCR for the relative quantification of isoforms. Cost efficiency and simplicity turned out to be better for RT-qPCR. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5634819 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56348192017-10-11 Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR Van Heetvelde, Mattias Van Loocke, Wouter Trypsteen, Wim Baert, Annelot Vanderheyden, Katrien Crombez, Brecht Vandesompele, Jo De Leeneer, Kim Claes, Kathleen B.M. Biomol Detect Quantif Original Research Article INTRODUCTION: For the relative quantification of isoform expression, RT-qPCR has been the gold standard for over a decade. More recently, digital PCR is becoming widely implemented, as it is promised to be more accurate, sensitive and less affected by inhibitors, without the need for standard curves. In this study we evaluated RT-qPCR versus RT-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for the relative quantification of isoforms in controls and carriers of the splice site mutation BRCA1 c.212+3A>G, associated with increased expression of several isoforms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: RNA was extracted from EBV cell lines of controls and heterozygous BRCA1 c.212+3A>G carriers. Transcript-specific plasmids were available to determine the efficiency, precision, reproducibility and accuracy of each method. RESULTS: Both ddPCR and RT-qPCR were able to accurately quantify all targets and showed the same LOB, LOD and LOQ; also precision and reproducibility were similar. Both techniques have the same dynamic range and linearity at biologically relevant template concentrations. However, a significantly higher cost and workload was required for ddPCR experiments. CONCLUSIONS: Our study recognizes the potential and validity of digital PCR but shows the value of a highly optimized qPCR for the relative quantification of isoforms. Cost efficiency and simplicity turned out to be better for RT-qPCR. Elsevier 2017-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5634819/ /pubmed/29021971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2017.09.001 Text en © 2017 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Article Van Heetvelde, Mattias Van Loocke, Wouter Trypsteen, Wim Baert, Annelot Vanderheyden, Katrien Crombez, Brecht Vandesompele, Jo De Leeneer, Kim Claes, Kathleen B.M. Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title | Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title_full | Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title_short | Evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital PCR |
title_sort | evaluation of relative quantification of alternatively spliced transcripts using droplet digital pcr |
topic | Original Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5634819/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29021971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bdq.2017.09.001 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanheetveldemattias evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT vanloockewouter evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT trypsteenwim evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT baertannelot evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT vanderheydenkatrien evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT crombezbrecht evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT vandesompelejo evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT deleeneerkim evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr AT claeskathleenbm evaluationofrelativequantificationofalternativelysplicedtranscriptsusingdropletdigitalpcr |