Hossein Ahmadpour-Yazdi1, Mohammad Hormozi-Nezhad2, Ali Abadi3, Mohammad Hossein Sanati4, Bahram Kazemi5. 1. Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Chemistry, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran ; Institute for Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. 3. Department of Chemistry, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran. 4. Department of Medical Biotechnology, National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (NIGEB), Shahrak-e- Pajoohesh, 15th Km, Tehran -Karaj Highway, Tehran, Iran. 5. Cellular and Molecular Biology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ; Department of Biotechnology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Proximal spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is one of the most significant neurodegenerative diseases amongst the autosomal-recessive genetic disorders which is caused by the absence of protein survival of motor neuron (SMN). A critical nucleotide difference in SMN2 compared to SMN1 gene leads to an inefficient protein. Hence, homozygous lack of SMN1 provides a progressive disease. Due to the high prevalence, up to now, several molecular diagnostic methods have been used which most of them are lengthy, expensive, and laborious. METHODS: In the present study, we exploited a gold nanoprobe-based method for semi-quantitative SMN1 gene dosage analysis compared to SMN2. The assay was done under hybridization process between Au nanoprobes and different ratios of SMN1/SMN2 amplicons. RESULTS: UV-vis spectra indicated that after the salt addition, nanoprobes aggregated gradually and their peak shifted to longer wavelengths except in the stable target-nanoprobes hybridization. The results revealed that the homozygous genotype of SMN2 gene is distinguished from the heterozygous genotypes of SMN genes by the naked eye, whereas different ratio of heterozygous genotypes (SMN1/SMN2) are differentiated better from each other using peak analysis ratios. CONCLUSION: The presented strategy is an alternative simple method for discrimination of homozygous deletion of SMN1 in less than 30 min. However, further evaluation of the assay using clinical samples is recommended prior to real-world use.
INTRODUCTION: Proximal spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is one of the most significant neurodegenerative diseases amongst the autosomal-recessive genetic disorders which is caused by the absence of protein survival of motor neuron (SMN). A critical nucleotide difference in SMN2 compared to SMN1 gene leads to an inefficient protein. Hence, homozygous lack of SMN1 provides a progressive disease. Due to the high prevalence, up to now, several molecular diagnostic methods have been used which most of them are lengthy, expensive, and laborious. METHODS: In the present study, we exploited a gold nanoprobe-based method for semi-quantitative SMN1 gene dosage analysis compared to SMN2. The assay was done under hybridization process between Au nanoprobes and different ratios of SMN1/SMN2 amplicons. RESULTS: UV-vis spectra indicated that after the salt addition, nanoprobes aggregated gradually and their peak shifted to longer wavelengths except in the stable target-nanoprobes hybridization. The results revealed that the homozygous genotype of SMN2 gene is distinguished from the heterozygous genotypes of SMN genes by the naked eye, whereas different ratio of heterozygous genotypes (SMN1/SMN2) are differentiated better from each other using peak analysis ratios. CONCLUSION: The presented strategy is an alternative simple method for discrimination of homozygous deletion of SMN1 in less than 30 min. However, further evaluation of the assay using clinical samples is recommended prior to real-world use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorimetric; Gold Nanoprobe; Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP); Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA); Survival of Motor Neuron (SMN)
Authors: G van der Steege; P M Grootscholten; P van der Vlies; T G Draaijers; J Osinga; J M Cobben; H Scheffer; C H Buys Journal: Lancet Date: 1995-04-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bruno Veigas; Diana Machado; João Perdigão; Isabel Portugal; Isabel Couto; Miguel Viveiros; Pedro V Baptista Journal: Nanotechnology Date: 2010-09-16 Impact factor: 3.874
Authors: David A Giljohann; Dwight S Seferos; Weston L Daniel; Matthew D Massich; Pinal C Patel; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: M E Ali; U Hashim; S Mustafa; Y B Che Man; M H M Yusop; M F Bari; Kh N Islam; M F Hasan Journal: Nanotechnology Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 3.874