| Literature DB >> 19108745 |
Athanasia Spandidos1, Xiaowei Wang, Huajun Wang, Stefan Dragnev, Tara Thurber, Brian Seed.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (QPCR) is a widely applied analytical method for the accurate determination of transcript abundance. Primers for QPCR have been designed on a genomic scale but non-specific amplification of non-target genes has frequently been a problem. Although several online databases have been created for the storage and retrieval of experimentally validated primers, only a few thousand primer pairs are currently present in existing databases and the primers are not designed for use under a common PCR thermal profile.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19108745 PMCID: PMC2631021 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-633
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Statistics of primers contained in the PrimerBank database.
| Human | 33741 | 167882 |
| Mouse | 27684 | 138918 |
| Total | 61425 | 306800 |
PrimerBank primer design and gene representation.
| Primer pairs with no redundancy | 23700 |
| Primer pairs with 2 target genes | 2534 |
| Primer pairs with more than 2 target genes | 621 |
| Total number of primer pairs | 26855 |
| Total number of genes represented | 27684 |
| Total number of genes not represented | 1165 |
Primer pairs for the mouse genome have 27684 gene targets. Design constraints allowed only 26855 primer pairs to be synthesized, some of which amplify the same sequence from 2 genes or gene isoforms.
Figure 1A screenshot of the web interface for PrimerBank. Several primer search terms can be used, such as: GenBank accession number, NCBI protein accession number, NCBI gene ID, PrimerBank ID, NCBI gene symbol or gene description (keyword). Website: [26].
Figure 2Summary of procedure for experimental validation of PrimerBank mouse primers.
Classification of failed PrimerBank primer pairs.
| Type of failure | Reasons for failure | Number of primer pairs | % from total analyzed |
| QT | No amplification detected | 1745 | 6.5% |
| G1 | No band observed on gel | 1619 | 6.0% |
| G2 | Multiple bands observed on gel | 2177 | 8.1% |
| G3 | Wrong size band observed on gel | 645 | 2.4% |
| G4 | Faint band observed on gel | 224 | 0.8% |
| GT | Failed based on gel analysis criteria (G1–G4) | 4665 | 17.4% |
| ST | Low sequence quality | 2378 | 8.9% |
| B1 | Sequences obtained did not match to the expected sequences | 1217 | 4.5% |
| B2 | Low match length between sequences obtained and the expected sequences | 2732 | 10.2% |
| B3 | Low % identity between sequences, expected sequences were not 1st matches | 1074 | 4.0% |
| BT | Failed based on BLAST analysis criteria (B1–B3) | 5023 | 18.7% |
26855 primer pairs, corresponding to 27684 transcripts were tested by QPCR, agarose gel electrophoresis, sequencing and BLAST. 26854 primer pairs, corresponding to 27683 transcripts, were tested by agarose gel electrophoresis, sequencing and BLAST. QPCR failures: QT. Total number of primer pairs for which no amplification was observed using SYBR Green I detection. Agarose gel failures: G1. Primer pairs for which no band could be seen on the agarose gel. G2. Primer pairs for which two or more bands could be seen on the agarose gel. G3. Primer pairs for which one band of the wrong (unexpected) size could be seen. G4. Primer pairs for which a faint band could be seen. GT. Total number of primer pairs which failed based on our gel analysis criteria. Sequencing failures: ST. Total number of primer pairs for which no PCR product sequencing information was obtained (low sequence quality, sequence reads less than 20–30 bases). BLAST failures: B1. Primer pairs whose PCR product sequences obtained did not match to the expected sequence by BLAST. B2. Primer pairs whose PCR product sequences obtained did not match to at least 50% of the length of the expected sequence by BLAST (nearly all for sequence quality reasons). B3. Primer pairs whose PCR product sequences obtained did not match with at least 92% identity to the expected sequence by BLAST, and/or for which BLAST did not return the expected sequence or any known isoforms as the first match. BT. Total number of primer pairs which were not successful based on our BLAST analysis criteria.
Figure 3Distribution of agarose gel failures. Multiple amplification visualized as two or more bands on the gel accounted for 46.7% of the failed samples. Undesired amplification visualized as the wrong size bands on the gel accounted for 13.8% of the failed samples. Poor amplification visualized as a faint band on the gel was observed in 4.8% of the failed samples and no amplification took place in 34.7% of the failed samples.
Figure 4Uniformity of amplification test using 96 PrimerBank primer pairs. A. PCR amplification plots. B. Dissociation curves plotted as the raw fluorescence with respect to temperature. Expected PCR product lengths range from 80–120 bp.
Figure 5Analysis of uniformity of amplification test. A. Ct frequency distribution. B. Correlation of Ct to total primer length, R: 0.08. C. Correlation of Ct to GC%, R: -0.12. D. Correlation of Ct to Tm, R: -0.29.
Primer pair location with respect to exons.
| 16356 | exon | exon |
| (11235) | (same exon) | (same exon) |
| 1425 | exon-exon junction | exon |
| 1576 | exon | exon-exon junction |
| 311 | exon-exon junction | exon-exon junction |
Data from the UCSC genome browser were downloaded and used to find the location of 26854 mouse forward (F) and reverse (R) primer pairs with respect to exons.