Shalini V Kumar1, Gregory J Hurteau, Simon D Spivack. 1. Laboratory of Human Toxicology and Molecular Epidemiology, Wadsworth Center, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York 12201-0509, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The origins of expression microarray and reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) signals in human saliva were evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The "RNA" extracts from human saliva samples were treated with vehicle, DNase, or RNase. Two-step amplification and hybridization to Affymetrix 133A cDNA microarrays were then done. Confirmatory RT-PCR experiments used conventionally designed PCR primer pairs for the reference housekeeper transcripts encoding 36B4, beta-actin, and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) mRNA sequences, which are known to be homologous to genomic DNA pseudogene sequences. Negative controls included the omission of reverse transcriptase ("no-RT") to detect any DNA-derived signal. Finally, an RNA-specific RT-PCR strategy eliminated confounding signals from contaminating genomic DNA. RESULTS: Microarray experiments revealed that untreated, DNase-treated, and RNase-treated "RNA" extracts from saliva all yielded negligible overall signals. Specific microarray signals for 36B4, beta-actin, and GAPDH were low, and were unaffected by RNase. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR reactions using conventional, non-RNA-specific primers on saliva samples yielded PCR products for 36B4, beta-actin, and GAPDH; DNase-treated saliva samples did not yield a PCR product, and the "no-RT" and "+RT" conditions yielded similar amounts of PCR product. The RNA-specific RT-PCR strategy, across all conditions, yielded no PCR product from saliva. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of (a) a minimal microarray signal, which was unaffected by RNase treatment, (b) the presence of a conventional RT-PCR housekeeper product in both RNase-treated and no-RT saliva samples, (c) the absence of a conventional RT-PCR housekeeper product in DNase-treated conditions, and (d) the absence of a RNA-specific RT-PCR product shows that any microarray or RT-PCR signal in the saliva must arise from genomic DNA, not RNA. Thus, saliva extracts do not support mRNA expression studies.
PURPOSE: The origins of expression microarray and reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) signals in human saliva were evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The "RNA" extracts from human saliva samples were treated with vehicle, DNase, or RNase. Two-step amplification and hybridization to Affymetrix 133A cDNA microarrays were then done. Confirmatory RT-PCR experiments used conventionally designed PCR primer pairs for the reference housekeeper transcripts encoding 36B4, beta-actin, and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) mRNA sequences, which are known to be homologous to genomic DNA pseudogene sequences. Negative controls included the omission of reverse transcriptase ("no-RT") to detect any DNA-derived signal. Finally, an RNA-specific RT-PCR strategy eliminated confounding signals from contaminating genomic DNA. RESULTS: Microarray experiments revealed that untreated, DNase-treated, and RNase-treated "RNA" extracts from saliva all yielded negligible overall signals. Specific microarray signals for 36B4, beta-actin, and GAPDH were low, and were unaffected by RNase. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR reactions using conventional, non-RNA-specific primers on saliva samples yielded PCR products for 36B4, beta-actin, and GAPDH; DNase-treated saliva samples did not yield a PCR product, and the "no-RT" and "+RT" conditions yielded similar amounts of PCR product. The RNA-specific RT-PCR strategy, across all conditions, yielded no PCR product from saliva. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of (a) a minimal microarray signal, which was unaffected by RNase treatment, (b) the presence of a conventional RT-PCR housekeeper product in both RNase-treated and no-RT saliva samples, (c) the absence of a conventional RT-PCR housekeeper product in DNase-treated conditions, and (d) the absence of a RNA-specific RT-PCR product shows that any microarray or RT-PCR signal in the saliva must arise from genomic DNA, not RNA. Thus, saliva extracts do not support mRNA expression studies.
Authors: Zhanzhi Hu; Bernhard G Zimmermann; Hui Zhou; Jianghua Wang; Bradley S Henson; Weixia Yu; David Elashoff; Guido Krupp; David T Wong Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: B Scott Ferguson; Steven F Buchsbaum; Ting-Ting Wu; Kuangwen Hsieh; Yi Xiao; Ren Sun; H Tom Soh Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Rushi S Patel; Andrew Jakymiw; Bing Yao; Brad A Pauley; Wendy C Carcamo; Joseph Katz; Jin Q Cheng; Edward K L Chan Journal: Arch Oral Biol Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: William E Bennett; Rosbel González-Rivera; Nurmohammad Shaikh; Vincent Magrini; Michelle Boykin; Barbara B Warner; Aaron Hamvas; Phillip I Tarr Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 2.303