| Literature DB >> 18628978 |
Julie Doostzadeh1, Shadi Shokralla, Farnaz Absalan, Roxana Jalili, Sharareh Mohandessi, James W Langston, Ronald W Davis, Mostafa Ronaghi, Baback Gharizadeh.
Abstract
Pyrosequencing is a DNA sequencing method based on the principle of sequencing-by-synthesis and pyrophosphate detection through a series of enzymatic reactions. This bioluminometric, real-time DNA sequencing technique offers unique applications that are cost-effective and user-friendly. In this study, we have combined a number of methods to develop an accurate, robust and cost efficient method to determine allele frequencies in large populations for association studies. The assay offers the advantage of minimal systemic sampling errors, uses a general biotin amplification approach, and replaces dTTP for dATP-apha-thio to avoid non-uniform higher peaks in order to increase accuracy. We demonstrate that this newly developed assay is a robust, cost-effective, accurate and reproducible approach for large-scale genotyping of DNA pools. We also discuss potential improvements of the software for more accurate allele frequency analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18628978 PMCID: PMC2442187 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1The overall workflow for high throughput allele frequency determination.
Comparison of allele frequency of three SNPs from a pool of 192 controls using manual and software analysis
| Gene name: CYP2E1, SNP ID: rs 915906 | ||||||||
| No.of Samples | Individual Samples | Pooled Samples (Software) | Pooled Samples (Manual) | % Error (Software) | % Error (Manual) | |||
| C% | T% | C% | T% | C% | T% | |||
| 1-96 | 18.75 | 81.25 | 18.8 | 81.2 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 0.05(±4.42) | 0.55(±0.063) |
| 1-192 | 16.4 | 83.6 | 14.2 | 85.8 | 15.62 | 84.38 | 2.2(±4.72) | 0.78(±0.042) |
| Gene name: DrD2, SNP ID: rs 6279 | ||||||||
| No.of Samples | Individual Samples | Pooled Samples (Software) | Pooled Samples (Manual) | % of Error (Software) | % of Error (Manual) | |||
| C% | G% | C% | G% | C% | G% | |||
| 1-96 | 28.64 | 71.35 | 30.5 | 69.5 | 29.55 | 70.45 | 1.86(±0.49) | 0.9(±0.065) |
| 1-192 | 31.9 | 68.1 | 36.1 | 63.9 | 33.58 | 66.42 | 4.2(±1.42) | 1.68(±0.034) |
| Gene name: COMT, SNP ID: rs933271 | ||||||||
| No.of Samples | Individual Samples | Pooled Samples (Software) | Pooled Samples (Manual) | % of Error (Software) | % of Error (Manual) | |||
| C% | T% | C% | T% | C% | T% | |||
| 1-96 | 26.04 | 73.96 | 27.98 | 72.02 | 27.59 | 72.41 | 1.94(±6.59) | 1.55(±0.18) |
| 1-192 | 26.04 | 73.96 | 29.25 | 70.75 | 26.59 | 73.4 | 3.21(±4.40) | 0.55(±0.12) |
Manual and software analysis comparison with the reference (true values) for pools of 96 and 192 for three SNP from genes CYP2E1, DrD2 and COMT. The table demonstrates significant lower error rates by manual evaluation.
Figure 2Shows the accuracy comparison of manual and software analysis with reference to true SNP values of the COMT gene.
Each pool consists of DNA from 192 individuals. The pyrograms signal peak heights analyzed with reference demonstrates a) low error rate b) higher error rate between manual and software analysis.