BACKGROUND: High-resolution melting curve analysis is an accurate method for mutation detection in genomic DNA. Few studies have compared the performance of high-resolution DNA melting curve analysis (HRM) in genomic and whole-genome amplified (WGA) DNA. METHODS: In 39 paired genomic and WGA samples, 23 amplicons from 9 genes were PCR amplified and analyzed by high-resolution melting curve analysis using the 96-well LightScanner (Idaho Technology). We used genotyping and bidirectional resequencing to verify melting curve results. RESULTS: Melting patterns were concordant between the genomic and WGA samples in 823 of 863 (95%) analyzed sample pairs. Of the discordant patterns, there was an overrepresentation of alternate melting curve patterns in the WGA samples, suggesting the presence of a mutation (false positives). Targeted resequencing in 135 genomic and 136 WGA samples revealed 43 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). All SNPs detected in genomic samples were also detected in WGA. Additional genotyping and sequencing allowed the classification of 628 genomic and 614 WGA amplicon samples. Heterozygous variants were identified by non-wild-type melting pattern in 98% of genomic and 97% of WGA samples (P = 0.11). Wild types were correctly classified in 99% of genomic and 91% of WGA samples (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In WGA DNA, high-resolution DNA melting curve analysis is a sensitive tool for SNP discovery through detection of heterozygote variants; however, it may misclassify a greater number of wild-type samples.
BACKGROUND: High-resolution melting curve analysis is an accurate method for mutation detection in genomic DNA. Few studies have compared the performance of high-resolution DNA melting curve analysis (HRM) in genomic and whole-genome amplified (WGA) DNA. METHODS: In 39 paired genomic and WGA samples, 23 amplicons from 9 genes were PCR amplified and analyzed by high-resolution melting curve analysis using the 96-well LightScanner (Idaho Technology). We used genotyping and bidirectional resequencing to verify melting curve results. RESULTS: Melting patterns were concordant between the genomic and WGA samples in 823 of 863 (95%) analyzed sample pairs. Of the discordant patterns, there was an overrepresentation of alternate melting curve patterns in the WGA samples, suggesting the presence of a mutation (false positives). Targeted resequencing in 135 genomic and 136 WGA samples revealed 43 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). All SNPs detected in genomic samples were also detected in WGA. Additional genotyping and sequencing allowed the classification of 628 genomic and 614 WGA amplicon samples. Heterozygous variants were identified by non-wild-type melting pattern in 98% of genomic and 97% of WGA samples (P = 0.11). Wild types were correctly classified in 99% of genomic and 91% of WGA samples (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In WGA DNA, high-resolution DNA melting curve analysis is a sensitive tool for SNP discovery through detection of heterozygote variants; however, it may misclassify a greater number of wild-type samples.
Authors: Frank B Dean; Seiyu Hosono; Linhua Fang; Xiaohong Wu; A Fawad Faruqi; Patricia Bray-Ward; Zhenyu Sun; Qiuling Zong; Yuefen Du; Jing Du; Mark Driscoll; Wanmin Song; Stephen F Kingsmore; Michael Egholm; Roger S Lasken Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-04-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Ming Lin; Rameen Beroukhim; Jeffrey C Lee; Xiaojun Zhao; Daniel J Richter; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Hidefumi Sasaki; David Altshuler; Cheng Li; Matthew Meyerson; William R Sellers Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2004-05-18 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: E K Silverman; H A Chapman; J M Drazen; S T Weiss; B Rosner; E J Campbell; W J O'DONNELL; J J Reilly; L Ginns; S Mentzer; J Wain; F E Speizer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Roy Bastien; Tracey B Lewis; Jason E Hawkes; John F Quackenbush; Thomas C Robbins; Juan Palazzo; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Rachel L Jacobs; Amanda N Spriggs; Tammie S MacFie; Andrea L Baden; Mitchell T Irwin; Patricia C Wright; Edward E Louis; Richard R Lawler; Nicholas I Mundy; Brenda J Bradley Journal: Primates Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 2.163
Authors: Ronald van Eijk; Marjo van Puijenbroek; Amiet R Chhatta; Nisha Gupta; Rolf H A M Vossen; Esther H Lips; Anne-Marie Cleton-Jansen; Hans Morreau; Tom van Wezel Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Michael H Cho; Dawn M Ciulla; Barbara J Klanderman; Craig P Hersh; Augusto A Litonjua; David Sparrow; Benjamin A Raby; Edwin K Silverman Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2008-11-21 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Bo G Winkel; Mads V Hollegaard; Morten S Olesen; Jesper H Svendsen; Stig Haunsø; David M Hougaard; Jacob Tfelt-Hansen Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Yuanhong Han; Yun Kang; Ivone Torres-Jerez; Foo Cheung; Christopher D Town; Patrick X Zhao; Michael K Udvardi; Maria J Monteros Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 3.969