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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Heetvelde, Mattias, Van Loocke, Wouter, Trypsteen, Wim, Baert, Annelot, Vanderheyden, Katrien, Crombez, Brecht, Vandesompele, Jo, De Leeneer, Kim, Claes, Kathleen B.M.
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