Literature DB >> 19573296

Molecular comparison of single cell MDA products derived from different cell types.

Stavros Glentis1, Sioban SenGupta, Alan Thornhill, Rubin Wang, Ian Craft, Joyce Catherine Harper.   

Abstract

The quality of DNA obtained from single cells for molecular analysis is primarily dependent on cell type and cell lysis. Multiple displacement amplification (MDA) amplifies the DNA isothermally with the use of Phi29 polymerase and random hexamer primers. The efficiency and accuracy of MDA was assessed on different cell types (buccal cells, lymphocytes, fibroblasts) using two multiplex PCR reactions that have been applied in clinical preimplantation genetic diagnosis cases (DM triplex-DM1, APOC2, Dl9S112 and CF triplex-DF508del, IVS8CA, IVS17TA). These results were compared using the DM triplex with MDA products from single blastomeres. Cells were lysed using a modified protocol excluding dithiothreitol in the alkaline lysis buffer. The MDA amplification efficiency for buccal cells was 82.0% (41/50) compared with 96.0% (48/50) for lymphocytes and 100% (20/20) for fibroblasts. The average allele dropout (ADO) rates were 31.0% for buccal cells, 20.8% for lymphocytes and 20.0% for fibroblasts with high inter-locus variation across all cell types (5.0-45.5%). Overall, MDA on single lymphocytes and fibroblasts lysed using the modified protocol produced DNA of sufficient quantity and quality for subsequent molecular analysis by PCR and gave results comparable with MDA products from blastomeres, in contrast to buccal cells.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19573296     DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60051-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online        ISSN: 1472-6483            Impact factor:   3.828


  7 in total

1.  Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) for Monogenic Disorders: the Value of Concurrent Aneuploidy Screening.

Authors:  Kara N Goldman; Taraneh Nazem; Alan Berkeley; Steven Palter; Jamie A Grifo
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 2.  Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: state of the art 2011.

Authors:  Joyce C Harper; Sioban B Sengupta
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.132

3.  Birth of a healthy infant following preimplantation PKHD1 haplotyping for autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease using multiple displacement amplification.

Authors:  Eduardo C Lau; Marleen M Janson; Mark R Roesler; Ellis D Avner; Estil Y Strawn; David P Bick
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  An update of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in gene diseases, chromosomal translocation, and aneuploidy screening.

Authors:  Li-Jung Chang; Shee-Uan Chen; Yi-Yi Tsai; Chia-Cheng Hung; Mei-Ya Fang; Yi-Ning Su; Yu-Shih Yang
Journal:  Clin Exp Reprod Med       Date:  2011-09-30

5.  Comparison of whole genome amplification methods for analysis of DNA extracted from microdissected early breast lesions in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue.

Authors:  Nona Arneson; Juan Moreno; Vladimir Iakovlev; Arezou Ghazani; Keisha Warren; David McCready; Igor Jurisica; Susan J Done
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2012-03-14

6.  Whole genome prediction for preimplantation genetic diagnosis.

Authors:  Akash Kumar; Allison Ryan; Jacob O Kitzman; Nina Wemmer; Matthew W Snyder; Styrmir Sigurjonsson; Choli Lee; Milena Banjevic; Paul W Zarutskie; Alexandra P Lewis; Jay Shendure; Matthew Rabinowitz
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 11.117

7.  Preclinical validation of a microarray method for full molecular karyotyping of blastomeres in a 24-h protocol.

Authors:  D S Johnson; G Gemelos; J Baner; A Ryan; C Cinnioglu; M Banjevic; R Ross; M Alper; B Barrett; J Frederick; D Potter; B Behr; M Rabinowitz
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2010-01-24       Impact factor: 6.918

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.