| Literature DB >> 26022272 |
Jean-Pierre Roperch1,2, Karim Benzekri3, Hicham Mansour4, Roberto Incitti5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Using quantitative methylation-specific PCR (QM-MSP) is a promising method for colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis from stool samples. Difficulty in eliminating PCR inhibitors of this body fluid has been extensively reported. Here, spermidine is presented as PCR facilitator for the detection of stool DNA methylation biomarkers using QM-MSP. We examined its effectiveness with NPY, PENK and WIF1, three biomarkers which we have previously shown to be of relevance to CRC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26022272 PMCID: PMC4446959 DOI: 10.1186/s12896-015-0148-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Biotechnol ISSN: 1472-6750 Impact factor: 2.563
Figure 1Verification and comparison of PCR amplification products of the albumin gene in presence and absence of spermidine. A: representative bisulfite sequencing electrophoregram of the Alb promoter using SG RT-PCR in presence of 1 mM spermidine from universal methylated human DNA (C1) and stool DNA sample (S1). All cytosine are converted to thymine noted in red resulting entirely from DNA modification. This follows after sodium bisulfite treatment (Bis) when referring to wild-type (WT) Alb gene sequence and B: the same PCR products of the Alb were analysed by agarose gel electrophoresis and revealed single amplification fragment of the predicted size (76 pb) when spermidine is present (C1, S1) and absence (C0, S0); NTC as negative control.
PCR efficiencies in presence and absence of spermidine
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st serial | |||||
| Control | 0 | 20.05 ± 0.17 | 100 | ||
| 1 | 20.11 ± 0.02 | 0.06 | 96 | = | |
| 2 | 20.77 ± 0.17 | 0.72 | 61 | - | |
| 3 | 21.12 ± 0.03 | 1.07 | 48 | - | |
| 4 | 21.70 ± 0.32 | 1.65 | 32 | - | |
| 5 | 22.66 ± 0.16 | 2.61 | 16 | - | |
| 10 | NA | ND | 0 | Total inhibition | |
| Sample | 0 | 28.16 ± 0.85 | 100 | ||
| 1 | 25.11 ± 0.11 | −3.06 | 831 | + | |
| 2 | 25.35 ± 0.03 | −2.81 | 701 | + | |
| 3 | 25.73 ± 0.11 | −2.44 | 541 | + | |
| 4 | 26.53 ± 0.16 | −1.63 | 310 | + | |
| 5 | 28.08 ± 0.13 | −0.08 | 106 | + | |
| 10 | NA | ND | 0 | Total inhibition | |
| 2nd serial | |||||
| Control | 0 | 19.86 ± 0.33 | 100 | ||
| 0.05 | 19.61 ± 0.10 | −0.25 | 119 | + | |
| 0.10 | 19.78 ± 0.13 | −0.09 | 106 | + | |
| 0.50 | 19.87 ± 0.15 | 0 | 100 | = | |
| 1 | 19.91 ± 0.14 | 0.05 | 97 | = | |
| Sample | 0 | 28.17 ± 0.26 | 100 | ||
| 0.05 | 26.63 ± 0.49 | −1.54 | 290 | + | |
| 0.10 | 25.98 ± 0.11 | −2.19 | 456 | + | |
| 0.50 | 25.09 ± 0.01 | −3.08 | 843 | + | |
| 1 | 25.22 ± 0.11 | −2.95 | 773 | + |
Abbreviations: Sperm., spermidine (mM); Ct, mean of cycle threshold value ± standard deviation value; AE, amplification efficiency; NA, non amplification; ND, not determined; =, equal; −, inhibitor; +, facilitator.
The amplification efficiency of the albumin gene at each spermidine concentration points was calculated using 2-ΔCt where ΔCt = (Ct with spermidine) – (Ct without spermidine). For example in the 1st study, Control DNA with 1 mM of spermidine showing a ΔCt = 0.06, we recovered 96% of the true yield (100%, ΔCt = 0).
Figure 2Comparison of melting curves of amplicons of the Alb gene using spermidine. We used a mixture of primers to amplify Alb gene with an amount of 50 ng of DNA templates at various spermidine concentrations ranging from 0 up to 10 mM. Melting curves of products are shown from C (A) and S (B), respectively. In (C), we highlight the melting curves of C and S in presence (C1, S1) and absence (C0, S0) of 1 mM spermidine.
Figure 3Interference of PCR amplification by spermidine. From 50 ng of DNA, the amplification curves of PCR products of the Alb gene using spermidine in SG RT-PCR are shown from C (A) and S (B). The spermidine has been used at various concentrations, ranging from 1 mM to 10 mM.
Relationship between spermidine concentration and amount of stool DNA
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 50 ng | 0 | 28.32 ± 0.15 | 100 | |
| 0.5 | 25.04 ± 0.11 | −3.28 | 968 | |
| 1 | 25.23 ± 0.17 | −3.09 | 849 | |
| 5 | 28.39 ± 0.21 | 0.07 | 95 | |
| 100 ng | 0 | 27.04 ± 0.16 | 100 | |
| 0.5 | 23.74 ± 0.12 | −3.31 | 988 | |
| 1 | 22.97 ± 0.24 | −4.07 | 1680 | |
| 5 | 25.49 ± 0.17 | −1.55 | 293 | |
| 250 ng | 0 | NA | ND | ND |
| 0.5 | 28.67 ± 0.27 | ND | ND | |
| 1 | 23.70 ± 0.37 | ND | ND | |
| 5 | 23.65 ± 0.10 | ND | ND | |
| 500 ng | 0 | NA | ND | ND |
| 0.5 | NA | ND | ND | |
| 1 | 28.00 ± 0.56 | ND | ND | |
| 5 | 26.92 ± 0.30 | ND | ND |
Abbreviations: Sample, stool DNA pooled; Sperm, spermidine (mM); Ct, mean of cycle threshold value ± standard deviation value; AE, amplification efficiency; NA, non amplification; ND, not determined.
Quantitative DNA methylation analysis
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| ID1 | - | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | NA | 0.14 ± 0.04 |
| + | 0.86 ± 0.26 | 1.10 ± 0.08 | 1.22 ± 0.41 | 3.18 ± 0.75 | |
| ID2 | - | 1.22 ± 0.21 | 1.31 ± 0.53 | 0.07 ± 0.18 | 2.60 ± 0.92 |
| + | 1.86 ± 0.11 | 1.35 ± 0.09 | 0.76 ± 0.15 | 3.97 ± 0.35 | |
| ID3 | - | NA | NA | 0.17 ± 0.07 | 0.17 ± 0.07 |
| + | NA | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 1.59 ± 0.22 | 1.69 ± 0.26 | |
| ID4 | - | 0.17 ± 0.08 | 0.32 ± 0.10 | NA | 0.49 ± 0.18 |
| + | 2.33 ± 0.32 | 1.88 ± 0.44 | 1.71 ± 0.27 | 5.65 ± 0.67 | |
| ID5 | - | 0.09 ± 0.08 | 0.17 ± 0.05 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.14 |
| + | 1.33 ± 0.22 | 1.44 ± 0.16 | 1.01 ± 0.07 | 3.78 ± 0.45 | |
| Sample (pooling | - | 0.21 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.03 ± 0.03 | 0.51 ± 0.12 |
| of five patients) | + | 1.74 ± 0.30 | 2.10 ± 0.18 | 0.81 ± 0.1 | 4.65 ± 0.67 |