| Literature DB >> 19426535 |
Vladislav A Malkov1, Kyle A Serikawa, Noel Balantac, James Watters, Gary Geiss, Afshin Mashadi-Hossein, Thomas Fare.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We assessed NanoString's nCounter Analysis System for its ability to quantify gene expression of forty-eight genes in a single reaction with 100 ng of total RNA or an equivalent amount of tissue lysate. In the nCounter System, multiplexed gene expression target levels are directly detected, without enzymatic reactions, via two sequence-specific probes. The individual mRNA is captured with one mRNA target sequence-specific capture probe that is used in a post-hybridization affinity purification procedure. The second mRNA target specific-sequence and fluorescent-labeled colored coded probe is then used in the detection with the 3-component complex separated on a surface via an applied electric field followed by imaging. We evaluated reproducibility, accuracy, concordance with quantitative RT-PCR, linearity, dynamic range, and the ability of the system to assay different inputs (matched samples of total RNA from Flash Frozen (FF) and Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissues (FFPET), and crude tissue lysates (CTL)).Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19426535 PMCID: PMC2688518 DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-80
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Experimental samples
| Sample Type | # of Samples | Replicated? | Synthetic spike-ins added? | Total # assayed |
| MAQC samples (Brain, UHR, and 25%:75% proportional mixes of each) | 4 | Yes (1×) | Yes (?) | 8 |
| Tissue Lysates | 10 | No | Yes | 10 |
| Flash frozen total RNA (4 xenografts at 4 different dosage conditions) | 16 | Yes (1×) | Yes | 32 |
| FFPET total RNA | 8 | No | Yes | 8 |
Gene list for nCounter™ probe synthesis.
| Gene/Gene Symbol | Representative Transcript/Transcript ID | Taqman probe ID (if used) |
| ASPA | NM_000049.2 | |
| BCL6 | NM_001706 | Hs00153368_m1 |
| C11orf58 | NM_014267.3 | |
| CCNG2 | NM_004354 | Hs00171119_m1 |
| CDH1 | NM_004360.2 | |
| CHGB | NM_001819.1 | |
| CUGBP1 | NM_006560.2|NM_198700.1|NM_001025596.1 | Hs00198069_m1 |
| DNAJB9 | NM_012328.1 | |
| DYNLL1 | NM_001037494.1|NM_001037495.1|NM_003746.2 | |
| H6PD | NM_004285.3 | Hs00188728_m1 |
| HBEGF | NM_001945.1 | |
| HIST1H1D | NM_005320.2 | |
| HKR2 | NM_181846.1 | Hs00419189_m1 |
| ICAM1 | NM_000201.1 | |
| IRS2 | NM_003749 | Hs00275843_s1 |
| ITM2B | NM_021999.2 | |
| LDHA | NM_005566.1 | |
| LGI1 | NM_005097.1 | |
| MDS032 | NM_018467.2 | |
| MLLT7 | NM_005938 | Hs00172973_m1 |
| MMP2 | NM_004530.2 | |
| MS4A6A | NM_152852.1|NM_022349.2|NM_152851.1 | Hs00223521_m1 |
| MXD4 | NM_006454 | Hs00170799_m1 |
| MYC | NM_002467 | Hs00153408_m1 |
| NARG1 | NM_057175 | Hs00228208_m1 |
| NIP7 | NM_016101 | Hs00602949_g1 |
| NR0B2 | NM_021969.1 | |
| NTS | NM_006183.3 | |
| PPARA | NM_001001928.2|NM_005036.4 | |
| RNF10 | NM_014868.3 | |
| SEPT2 | NM_001008491.1|NM_001008492.1|NM_006155.1|NM_004404.3 | |
| SFRS10 | NM_004593.1 | |
| SHCBP1 | NM_024745.2 | |
| SLC25A32 | NM_030780 | Hs00229219_m1 |
| TAF1A | NM_005681 | Hs00375858_m1 |
| TFRC | NM_003234.1 | |
| THBS1 | NM_003246.2 | |
| TMSL8 | NM_021992.2 | |
| TP53 | NM_000546.2 | |
| r60_1 | NA | |
| r60_3 | NA | |
| r60_a104 | NA | |
| r60_a107 | NA | |
| r60_a135 | NA | |
| r60_a20 | NA | |
| r60_a22 | NA | |
| r60_a97 | NA | |
| r60_n11 | NA | |
| r60_n9 | NA | |
Expected and back-calculated (observed) concentrations in fmoles of Nanostring spike-in mixes 3 and 4, including %CV and %Bias.
| Nanostring spike-in Mix #3 | Nanostring spike-in Mix #4 | |||||||||
| Spike Name | Expected | Observed | StdDwev | CV, % | Bias, % | Expected | Observed | StdDev | CV, % | Bias, % |
| S23 | 50 | 61.45 | 3.48 | 5.7 | 22.9 | 50 | 59.45 | 3.63 | 6.1 | 18.9 |
| S14 | 5 | 3.36 | 0.28 | 8.5 | 32.9 | 5 | 3.24 | 0.31 | 9.5 | 35.2 |
| S19 | 0.5 | 0.42 | 0.07 | 17.2 | 16.5 | 0.5 | 0.45 | 0.08 | 17.3 | 10.6 |
| S8 | 5 | 3.19 | 0.24 | 7.5 | 36.2 | 15 | 9.94 | 0.62 | 6.3 | 33.7 |
| S13 | 15 | 10.74 | 0.48 | 4.5 | 28.4 | 5 | 3.08 | 0.31 | 10.0 | 38.5 |
| S22 | 5 | 4.72 | 0.30 | 6.3 | 5.5 | 50 | 56.19 | 3.77 | 6.7 | 12.4 |
| S7 | 50 | 53.23 | 2.67 | 5.0 | 6.5 | 5 | 4.36 | 0.30 | 7.0 | 12.9 |
| S17 | 1.5 | 2.41 | 0.25 | 10.4 | 60.8 | 4.5 | 7.96 | 0.75 | 9.4 | 76.9 |
| S3 | 4.5 | 5.4 | 0.33 | 6.0 | 19.9 | 1.5 | 1.62 | 0.19 | 11.8 | 7.8 |
| S6 | 0.25 | 0.31 | 0.07 | 21.8 | 23.3 | 0.75 | 1.02 | 0.13 | 12.8 | 35.7 |
| S4 | 0.75 | 1.06 | 0.13 | 12.1 | 41.5 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.07 | 17.7 | 50.4 |
Calculations based on all replicates.
Expected and observed concentrations for Rosetta spike-ins 11 and 12, including %CV and %Bias.
| Rosetta spike-in #11 | ||||||
| Transcript name | Intended conc, AU | Best Fit Expected | Observed | StdDev | CV, % | Bias, % |
| r60_a20:50:rp | 100 | 32.09 | 28.62 | 1.47 | 5.2 | 10.8 |
| r60_a22_rp | 10 | 3.21 | 4.71 | 0.28 | 5.9 | 46.9 |
| r60_a104_rp | 10 | 3.21 | 2.62 | 0.14 | 5.2 | 18.5 |
| r60_1_rp | 10 | 3.21 | 4.29 | 0.26 | 6.1 | 33.6 |
| r60_a107_rp | 30 | 9.63 | 10.56 | 0.70 | 6.6 | 9.7 |
| r60_3_rp | 3 | 0.96 | 1.02 | 0.09 | 9.1 | 6.1 |
| r60_a135_rp | 9 | 2.89 | 3.13 | 0.16 | 5.0 | 8.3 |
| r60_a97_rp | 0.5 | 0.16 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 21.8 | 15.5 |
| r60_n11:30:rp | 1.5 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.07 | 21.3 | 30.1 |
| Rosetta spike-in #12 | ||||||
| r60_a20:50:rp | 100 | 44.18 | 37.56 | 2.25 | 6.0 | 15.0 |
| r60_a22_rp | 100 | 44.18 | 81.54 | 5.51 | 6.8 | 84.5 |
| r60_a104_rp | 30 | 13.25 | 12.16 | 0.70 | 5.8 | 8.2 |
| r60_1_rp | 10 | 4.42 | 5.85 | 0.30 | 5.1 | 32.3 |
| r60_a107_rp | 10 | 4.42 | 4.49 | 0.36 | 8.0 | 1.6 |
| r60_3_rp | 9 | 3.98 | 4.28 | 0.25 | 5.8 | 7.7 |
| r60_a135_rp | 3 | 1.33 | 1.30 | 0.08 | 6.2 | 1.6 |
| r60_a97_rp | 1.5 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.07 | 11.3 | 7.9 |
| r60_n11:30:rp | 0.5 | 0.22 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 29.7 | 43.6 |
Calculations based on a per-sample basis.
Figure 1Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Blue and black dots represent the two replicate measurements for each mouse sample. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 2Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 3Comparison of intensities derived from Taqman. The line in each case represents a slope of 1. Only data points within the calibration curve are presented in these graphs. Units for the x-axis are delta CTs using CUGBP1 to normalize; units for the y-axis are log2 ratios of nCounter™ counts for a given gene and CUGPB1. Error bars represent standard deviations.
Figure 4Plot for ratio differences between nCounter™ and Taqman. The differences in ratio between Taqman® and nCounter™ for the MAQC and xenograft data sets were plotted versus average ratio of two platforms. Markers in blue represent ratios derived for xenograft samples; markers in green represent ratios derived for MAQC samples.
Figure 5Cumulative distribution function plots for difference between Taqman. Values on the x-axis are the absolute value of the difference between Taqman® and nCounter™ in log2 scale. The y-axis indicates the percentage of ratios which show a specific degree of difference between ratios or less.