Dataset Information

Differences in AMY1 Gene Copy Numbers Derived from Blood, Buccal Cells and Saliva Using Quantitative and Droplet Digital PCR Methods: Flagging the Pitfall.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The human salivary (AMY1) gene, encoding salivary ?-amylase, has variable copy number variants (CNVs) in the human genome. We aimed to determine if real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and the more recently available Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) can provide a precise quantification of the AMY1 gene copy number in blood, buccal cells and saliva samples derived from the same individual.

Methods

Seven participants were recruited and DNA was extracted from the blood, buccal cells and saliva samples provided by each participant. Taqman assay real-time qPCR and ddPCR were conducted to quantify AMY1 gene copy numbers. Statistical analysis was carried out to determine the difference in AMY1 gene copy number between the different biological specimens and different assay methods.

Results

We found significant within-individual difference (p<0.01) in AMY1 gene copy number between different biological samples as determined by qPCR. However, there was no significant within-individual difference in AMY1 gene copy number between different biological samples as determined by ddPCR. We also found that AMY1 gene copy number of blood samples were comparable between qPCR and ddPCR, while there is a significant difference (p<0.01) between AMY1 gene copy numbers measured by qPCR and ddPCR for both buccal swab and saliva samples.

Conclusions

Despite buccal cells and saliva samples being possible sources of DNA, it is pertinent that ddPCR or a single biological sample, preferably blood sample, be used for determining highly polymorphic gene copy numbers like AMY1, due to the large within-individual variability between different biological samples if real time qPCR is employed.

SUBMITTER: Ooi DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5268653 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in AMY1 Gene Copy Numbers Derived from Blood, Buccal Cells and Saliva Using Quantitative and Droplet Digital PCR Methods: Flagging the Pitfall.

Ooi Delicia Shu Qin DS Tan Verena Ming Hui VM Ong Siong Gim SG Chan Yiong Huak YH Heng Chew Kiat CK Lee Yung Seng YS

PloS one 20170126 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>The human salivary (AMY1) gene, encoding salivary α-amylase, has variable copy number variants (CNVs) in the human genome. We aimed to determine if real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and the more recently available Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) can provide a precise quantification of the AMY1 gene copy number in blood, buccal cells and saliva samples derived from the same individual.<h4>Methods</h4>Seven participants were recruited and DNA was extracted fr ...[more]

PMID: 28125683

Similar Datasets

Project description:Bacteria can be considered as biological nanofactories that manufacture a cornucopia of bioproducts most notably recombinant proteins. As such, they must perfectly match with appropriate plasmid vectors to ensure successful overexpression of target genes. Among many parameters that correlate positively with protein productivity plasmid copy number plays pivotal role. Therefore, development of new and more accurate methods to assess this critical parameter will result in optimization of expression of plasmid-encoded genes. In this study, we present a simple and highly accurate method for quantifying plasmid copy number utilizing an EvaGreen single colour, droplet digital PCR. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this method by examining the copy number of the pBR322 vector within Escherichia coli DH5? cells. The obtained results were successfully validated by real-time PCR. However, we observed a strong dependency of the plasmid copy number on the method chosen for isolation of the total DNA. We found that application of silica-membrane-based columns for DNA purification or DNA isolation with use of bead-beating, a mechanical cell disruption lead to determination of an average of 20.5 or 7.3 plasmid copies per chromosome, respectively. We found that recovery of the chromosomal DNA from purification columns was less efficient than plasmid DNA (46.5 ± 1.9% and 87.4 ± 5.5%, respectively) which may lead to observed differences in plasmid copy number. Besides, the plasmid copy number variations dependent on DNA template isolation method, we found that droplet digital PCR is a very convenient method for measuring bacterial plasmid content. Careful determination of plasmid copy number is essential for better understanding and optimization of recombinant proteins production process. Droplet digital PCR is a very precise method that allows performing thousands of individual PCR reactions in a single tube. The ddPCR does not depend on running standard curves and is a straightforward and reliable method to quantify the plasmid copy number. Therefore we believe that the ddPCR designed in this study will be widely used for any plasmid copy number calculation in the future.

Project description:BackgroundPlasmids are widely used for molecular cloning or production of proteins in laboratory and industrial settings. Constant modification has brought forth countless plasmid vectors whose characteristics in terms of average plasmid copy number (PCN) and stability are rarely known. The crucial factor determining the PCN is the replication system; most replication systems in use today belong to a small number of different classes and are available through repositories like the Standard European Vector Architecture (SEVA).ResultsIn this study, the PCN was determined in a set of seven SEVA-based expression plasmids only differing in the replication system. The average PCN for all constructs was determined by Droplet Digital PCR and ranged between 2 and 40 per chromosome in the host organism Escherichia coli. Furthermore, a plasmid-encoded EGFP reporter protein served as a means to assess variability in reporter gene expression on the single cell level. Only cells with one type of plasmid (RSF1010 replication system) showed a high degree of heterogeneity with a clear bimodal distribution of EGFP intensity while the others showed a normal distribution. The heterogeneous RSF1010-carrying cell population and one normally distributed population (ColE1 replication system) were further analyzed by sorting cells of sub-populations selected according to EGFP intensity. For both plasmids, low and highly fluorescent sub-populations showed a remarkable difference in PCN, ranging from 9.2 to 123.4 for ColE1 and from 0.5 to 11.8 for RSF1010, respectively.ConclusionsThe average PCN determined here for a set of standardized plasmids was generally at the lower end of previously reported ranges and not related to the degree of heterogeneity. Further characterization of a heterogeneous and a homogeneous population demonstrated considerable differences in the PCN of sub-populations. We therefore present direct molecular evidence that the average PCN does not represent the true number of plasmid molecules in individual cells.

Dataset Information

Differences in AMY1 Gene Copy Numbers Derived from Blood, Buccal Cells and Saliva Using Quantitative and Droplet Digital PCR Methods: Flagging the Pitfall.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Differences in AMY1 Gene Copy Numbers Derived from Blood, Buccal Cells and Saliva Using Quantitative and Droplet Digital PCR Methods: Flagging the Pitfall.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets