Dataset Information

Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions.

ABSTRACT: The Qubit fluorometer is a DNA quantification device based on the fluorescence intensity of fluorescent dye binding to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). Qubit is generally considered useful for checking DNA quality before next-generation sequencing because it measures intact dsDNA. To examine the most accurate and suitable methods for quantifying DNA for quality assessment, we compared three quantification methods: NanoDrop, which measures UV absorbance; Qubit; and quantitative PCR (qPCR), which measures the abundance of a target gene. For the comparison, we used three types of DNA: 1) DNA extracted from fresh frozen liver tissues (Frozen-DNA); 2) DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver tissues comparable to those used for Frozen-DNA (FFPE-DNA); and 3) DNA extracted from the remaining fractions after RNA extraction with Trizol reagent (Trizol-DNA). These DNAs were serially diluted with distilled water and measured using three quantification methods. For Frozen-DNA, the Qubit values were not proportional to the dilution ratio, in contrast with the NanoDrop and qPCR values. This non-proportional decrease in Qubit values was dependent on a lower salt concentration, and over 1 mM NaCl in the DNA solution was required for the Qubit measurement. For FFPE-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were lower than the NanoDrop values. However, electrophoresis revealed that qPCR reflected the degree of DNA fragmentation more accurately than Qubit. Thus, qPCR is superior to Qubit for checking the quality of FFPE-DNA. For Trizol-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were consistently lower than the NanoDrop values, similar to FFPE-DNA. However, the qPCR values were higher than the NanoDrop values. Electrophoresis with SYBR Green I and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) quantification demonstrated that Trizol-DNA consisted mostly of non-fragmented ssDNA. Therefore, Qubit is not always the most accurate method for quantifying DNA available for PCR.

SUBMITTER: Nakayama Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4777359 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions.

Nakayama Yuki Y Yamaguchi Hiromi H Einaga Naoki N Esumi Mariko M

PloS one 20160303 3

The Qubit fluorometer is a DNA quantification device based on the fluorescence intensity of fluorescent dye binding to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). Qubit is generally considered useful for checking DNA quality before next-generation sequencing because it measures intact dsDNA. To examine the most accurate and suitable methods for quantifying DNA for quality assessment, we compared three quantification methods: NanoDrop, which measures UV absorbance; Qubit; and quantitative PCR (qPCR), which meas ...[more]

PMID: 26937682

Similar Datasets

Project description:The simultaneous measurement of gene expression for thousands of genes in a single analysis by the microarray technology allows researchers to describe transcriptomes in various samples of interest. Problems with variation in data quality derived from microarray experiments are well known and might result from poor RNA quality, background problems, or sub optimal signal strength. To assess variation due to the fluorescent dye chosen, three different dye pairs were tested for labelling of cDNA in gene expression analysis experiments on a porcine immune focused oligonucleotide microarray (POM3). This in-house oligonucleotide microarray allowed a direct comparison of background fluorescence, Median signal intensities, numbers of spots detected, and resistance to photobleaching between different dye pairs. We tested Alexa Flour 546/647, Cy3/Cy5 as well as Oyster 550/650 all from Genisphere Inc., Hatfield, PA, USA. Keywords: Comparison of fluorescent dyes Each dye pairs were hybridized on two slides. The same two samples were compared on all the slides used in the present study. The liver sample from a healthy animal was labeled with the high wavelength dyes (Oyster 650/Alexa 647/Cy5) and the liver sample from the sick animal was labeled with the low wavelength dyes (Oyster 550/Alexa 546/Cy3). Each slide was scanned 3 times, immediately after hybridization (first round), after 1 month of storage in darkness and after 24 hours on the bench (12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of artificial light). Total RNA from the infected and control liver samples were extracted using RNeasy midi kit (Qiagen, Denmark) and DNase treated using RNase-Free DNase Set (Qiagen). 3DNATM Array 900 expression array detection kits (Genisphere Inc.) were used for the labeling and cDNA synthesis reaction of the RNA in the present study. Three different pairs of fluorescent dyes Oyster 550/650 (Genisphere Inc.), Alexa 546/647 (Genisphere Inc.), and Cy3/Cy5 (Genisphere Inc.) were used in separate labeling reactions. Labeling was done according to the manufacturers protocol for large-scale cDNA synthesis. For the cDNA synthesis 9.2Âµg total RNA from each liver sample was used and mixed with 20U AmpliQ RTenzyme and 10x first strand buffer (Bie og Berntsen, RÃ¸dovre, Denmark). Hybridization and washing were performed according to the manufacturers instructions (Genisphere) using Corning hybridization chambers. For one cDNA hybridization reaction; 6.5Âµl cDNA from each synthesis, 0.5Âµl Salmon sperm (10Âµg/Âµl) and 13.5Âµl 2 x Formamide-Based Hybridization Buffer (3DNA Array 900, Genisphere) was used. A total hybridization mix of 29Âµl was applied under a 22I x 25 mm LifterSlip (Erie Scientific, Portsmouth, NH, USA) carefully avoiding air bubbles. Slides were incubated at 44oC in a water bath over night. Wash buffer 1 (3DNA Array 900, Genisphere) was preheated to 44oC for the post cDNA hybridization wash. For two 3DNA hybridization reaction mixes; 2.5Âµl of each Capture reagent and 26Âµl SDS-Based hybridization buffer was mixed to a final volume of 52Âµl. 26Âµl 3DNA hybridization mix was applied to each slide, and incubated in darkness in a water bath at 50oC for 4 hours. Wash buffer 1 was preheated to 60oC for the post 3DNA hybridization wash. Slides were scanned on a CCD ArrayWoRxe auto (Applied Precision, Issaquah, WA, USA) using different exposure times (0.3 for 595 nm and 1.2 for 685 nm).

Dataset Information

Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions.

Publications

Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets