Literature DB >> 22638881

Evaluation of plasmid and genomic DNA calibrants used for the quantification of genetically modified organisms.

M Caprioara-Buda1, W Meyer, B Jeynov, P Corbisier, S Trapmann, H Emons.   

Abstract

The reliable quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) by real-time PCR requires, besides thoroughly validated quantitative detection methods, sustainable calibration systems. The latter establishes the anchor points for the measured value and the measurement unit, respectively. In this paper, the suitability of two types of DNA calibrants, i.e. plasmid DNA and genomic DNA extracted from plant leaves, for the certification of the GMO content in reference materials as copy number ratio between two targeted DNA sequences was investigated. The PCR efficiencies and coefficients of determination of the calibration curves as well as the measured copy number ratios for three powder certified reference materials (CRMs), namely ERM-BF415e (NK603 maize), ERM-BF425c (356043 soya), and ERM-BF427c (98140 maize), originally certified for their mass fraction of GMO, were compared for both types of calibrants. In all three systems investigated, the PCR efficiencies of plasmid DNA were slightly closer to the PCR efficiencies observed for the genomic DNA extracted from seed powders rather than those of the genomic DNA extracted from leaves. Although the mean DNA copy number ratios for each CRM overlapped within their uncertainties, the DNA copy number ratios were significantly different using the two types of calibrants. Based on these observations, both plasmid and leaf genomic DNA calibrants would be technically suitable as anchor points for the calibration of the real-time PCR methods applied in this study. However, the most suitable approach to establish a sustainable traceability chain is to fix a reference system based on plasmid DNA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22638881     DOI: 10.1007/s00216-012-6104-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem        ISSN: 1618-2642            Impact factor:   4.142


  6 in total

Review 1.  Relative quantification in seed GMO analysis: state of art and bottlenecks.

Authors:  Maher Chaouachi; Aurélie Bérard; Khaled Saïd
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Development and Validation of a New Robust Detection Method for Low-Content DNA Using ΔΔCq-Based Real-Time PCR with Optimized Standard Plasmids as a Control Sample.

Authors:  Keisuke Soga; Kosuke Nakamura; Tomohiro Egi; Jumpei Narushima; Satoko Yoshiba; Masahiro Kishine; Junichi Mano; Kazumi Kitta; Reona Takabatake; Norihito Shibata; Kazunari Kondo
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 8.008

3.  DNA copy number concentration measured by digital and droplet digital quantitative PCR using certified reference materials.

Authors:  Philippe Corbisier; Leonardo Pinheiro; Stéphane Mazoua; Anne-Marie Kortekaas; Pui Yan Jenny Chung; Tsvetelina Gerganova; Gert Roebben; Hendrik Emons; Kerry Emslie
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 4.142

4.  Expression of GM content in mass fraction from digital PCR data.

Authors:  Philippe Corbisier; Gerhard Buttinger; Cristian Savini; Maria Grazia Sacco; Francesco Gatto; Hendrik Emons
Journal:  Food Control       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 5.548

5.  Quantification of plasmid DNA reference materials for Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli based on UV, HR-ICP-MS and digital PCR.

Authors:  Wen Liang; Li Xu; Zhiwei Sui; Yan Li; Lanying Li; Yanli Wen; Chunhua Li; Shuzhen Ren; Gang Liu
Journal:  Chem Cent J       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 4.215

6.  Inter-laboratory analysis of selected genetically modified plant reference materials with digital PCR.

Authors:  David Dobnik; Tina Demšar; Ingrid Huber; Lars Gerdes; Sylvia Broeders; Nancy Roosens; Frederic Debode; Gilbert Berben; Jana Žel
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 4.142

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.