Cargando…

Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting

In the analysis of quantitative PCR (qPCR) data, the quantification cycle (C(q)) indicates the position of the amplification curve with respect to the cycle axis. Because C(q) is directly related to the starting concentration of the target, and the difference in C(q) values is related to the startin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián, Ruijter, Jan M., van den Hoff, Maurice J. B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8229287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34072308
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11060496
_version_ 1783712942376615936
author Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián
Ruijter, Jan M.
van den Hoff, Maurice J. B.
author_facet Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián
Ruijter, Jan M.
van den Hoff, Maurice J. B.
author_sort Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián
collection PubMed
description In the analysis of quantitative PCR (qPCR) data, the quantification cycle (C(q)) indicates the position of the amplification curve with respect to the cycle axis. Because C(q) is directly related to the starting concentration of the target, and the difference in C(q) values is related to the starting concentration ratio, the only results of qPCR analysis reported are often C(q), ΔC(q) or ΔΔC(q) values. However, reporting of C(q) values ignores the fact that C(q) values may differ between runs and machines, and, therefore, cannot be compared between laboratories. Moreover, C(q) values are highly dependent on the PCR efficiency, which differs between assays and may differ between samples. Interpreting reported C(q) values, assuming a 100% efficient PCR, may lead to assumed gene expression ratios that are 100-fold off. This review describes how differences in quantification threshold setting, PCR efficiency, starting material, PCR artefacts, pipetting errors and sampling variation are at the origin of differences and variability in C(q) values and discusses the limits to the interpretation of observed C(q) values. These issues can be avoided by calculating efficiency-corrected starting concentrations per reaction. The reporting of gene expression ratios and fold difference between treatments can then easily be based on these starting concentrations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8229287
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82292872021-06-26 Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián Ruijter, Jan M. van den Hoff, Maurice J. B. Life (Basel) Review In the analysis of quantitative PCR (qPCR) data, the quantification cycle (C(q)) indicates the position of the amplification curve with respect to the cycle axis. Because C(q) is directly related to the starting concentration of the target, and the difference in C(q) values is related to the starting concentration ratio, the only results of qPCR analysis reported are often C(q), ΔC(q) or ΔΔC(q) values. However, reporting of C(q) values ignores the fact that C(q) values may differ between runs and machines, and, therefore, cannot be compared between laboratories. Moreover, C(q) values are highly dependent on the PCR efficiency, which differs between assays and may differ between samples. Interpreting reported C(q) values, assuming a 100% efficient PCR, may lead to assumed gene expression ratios that are 100-fold off. This review describes how differences in quantification threshold setting, PCR efficiency, starting material, PCR artefacts, pipetting errors and sampling variation are at the origin of differences and variability in C(q) values and discusses the limits to the interpretation of observed C(q) values. These issues can be avoided by calculating efficiency-corrected starting concentrations per reaction. The reporting of gene expression ratios and fold difference between treatments can then easily be based on these starting concentrations. MDPI 2021-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8229287/ /pubmed/34072308 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11060496 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Ruiz-Villalba, Adrián
Ruijter, Jan M.
van den Hoff, Maurice J. B.
Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title_full Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title_fullStr Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title_full_unstemmed Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title_short Use and Misuse of C(q) in qPCR Data Analysis and Reporting
title_sort use and misuse of c(q) in qpcr data analysis and reporting
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8229287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34072308
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/life11060496
work_keys_str_mv AT ruizvillalbaadrian useandmisuseofcqinqpcrdataanalysisandreporting
AT ruijterjanm useandmisuseofcqinqpcrdataanalysisandreporting
AT vandenhoffmauricejb useandmisuseofcqinqpcrdataanalysisandreporting