Literature DB >> 26403809

Reproducibility of Telomere Length Assessment--An International Collaborative Study.

Carmen M Martin-Ruiz, Duncan Baird, Laureline Roger, Petra Boukamp, Damir Krunic, Richard Cawthon, Martin M Dokter, Pim van der Harst, Sofie Bekaert, Tim de Meyer, Goran Roos, Ulrika Svenson, Veryan Codd, Nilesh J Samani, Liane McGlynn, Paul G Shiels, Karen A Pooley, Alison M Dunning, Rachel Cooper, Andrew Wong, Andrew Kingston, Thomas von Zglinicki.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2015        PMID: 26403809      PMCID: PMC6312091          DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyv171

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


× No keyword cloud information.
International Journal of Epidemiology 2014, doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu191 Key Messages Rankings are similar if different laboratories measure telomere lengths in the same samples. TLR values for Labs 3 and 4 in round 2 as shown in Tab. 2 were not calculated from the set of raw values shown in suppl. Tab. S2, and this error was propagated through the following analyses. In addition, in suppl. Tab. S3, Pearson correlations were shown instead of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. Results based on the set of raw data shown in suppl. Tab S2 are provided below. We correct the following statements (corrections underlined): Results: Absolute results from different laboratories differed widely and could thus not be compared directly, but most rankings of relative telomere lengths were highly correlated (correlation coefficients 0.25 −0.99). TLR as measured in the participating labs and inter-lab CVs in round 1 (to) and round 2 (bottom) TLR, telomere length ratio; CVs, coefficients of variation. a All TLR values were calculated as the ratio of the estimated telomere length for a particular sample, divided by the estimated telomere length for sample G. b The second round of measurements was designed to enable inter-batch comparison and included 5 repeat samples from the first round (B, C, G, H, I), of which samples C, G and H were duplicated (for intra-batch comparison). CVs for qPCR labs were higher than those for Southern/STELA labs (p = 0.000, paired t-test). Telomere length ratios (TLRs) by laboratory, round and sample. TLRs are normalized to sample G, first round. Symbols indicate laboratories and techniques. Green indicates SOUTH, blue indicates STELA and pink symbols indicate qPCR. ▪ Lab 1 South; ▴ Lab 2 South; ✗ Lab 3 STELA; ▴ Lab 4 qPCR; ♦ Lab 5 qPCR; * Lab 6 qPCR; ▪ Lab 7 qPCR; Δ Lab 8 qPCR; ♦ Lab 9 qPCR; • Lab 10 qPCR duplex; ○ Lab 10-2 qPCR monoplex. (a–c). Intra-batch CVs per laboratory Inter-batch CVs per laboratory Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between participating laboratories z-scored results from all participating laboratories in round 1 (top) and 2 (bottom) and inter-laboratory variation in z scores (as standard deviation) between all laboratories and separated by technique Test results
Table 2.

TLR as measured in the participating labs and inter-lab CVs in round 1 (to) and round 2 (bottom)

Sample Round 1
Lab 1Lab 2Lab 3Lab 4Lab5Lab6Lab7Lab8Lab9CV for All LabsCV for qPCR LabsCV for qPCR triplets (median)CV for South & STELA
SouthSouthSTELAqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCR
A1.191.071.351.131.061.231.440.911.1013.7815.6014.7511.67
B1.151.341.280.651.181.141.211.341.1617.8921.4419.237.68
C1.911.611.851.511.721.532.351.551.7815.1718.4013.668.92
D1.081.261.070.590.660.831.130.830.6327.4525.7518.789.38
E0.630.870.440.220.360.790.130.3157.5361.5952.5622.86
F0.630.790.790.390.190.280.460.390.1453.4640.5442.9212.80
G a1.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.001.00
H0.640.680.750.170.310.330.310.1357.9336.8741.467.79
I0.911.110.941.301.521.101.801.391.7925.4418.6516.9310.86
J0.900.950.940.880.860.831.150.890.8910.2112.839.742.68

TLR, telomere length ratio; CVs, coefficients of variation.

a All TLR values were calculated as the ratio of the estimated telomere length for a particular sample, divided by the estimated telomere length for sample G.

b The second round of measurements was designed to enable inter-batch comparison and included 5 repeat samples from the first round (B, C, G, H, I), of which samples C, G and H were duplicated (for intra-batch comparison). CVs for qPCR labs were higher than those for Southern/STELA labs (p = 0.000, paired t-test).

Table 3.

Intra-batch CVs per laboratory

SampleLab 1Lab 2Lab 3Lab 4Lab5Lab6Lab7Lab8Lab9Lab 10Lab 10-2
nameSouthSouthSTELAqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCR
C1.7020.17810.2947.7991.9034.7714.5663.35411.93431.299
G4.6143.4814.3741.3312.1622.1564.7210.3240.4707.09520.089
H1.0832.0071.4891.3047.0188.9853.8610.0002.4046.264
Table 4.

Inter-batch CVs per laboratory

SampleLab 1Lab 2Lab 3Lab 4Lab 5Lab 6Lab 7Lab 8Lab 9
nameTech 1Tech 1Tech 2Tech 3Tech 3Tech 3Tech 3Tech 3Tech 3
B13.3881.49911.62717.9893.0465.21511.5227.43111.314
C15.3053.3683.7726.4973.5641.65228.9061.7093.973
G2.2701.7192.1540.6691.0731.0862.3220.1620.235
H8.8132.9801.25911.6508.9257.1440.85013.671
I3.8777.9913.7550.8972.1758.62022.0521.0937.395
Suppl. Table S3.

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between participating laboratories

Round 1Lab 1 SouthLab 2 SouthLab 3 STELALab 4 qPCRLab 5 qPCRLab 6 qPCRLab 7 qPCRLab 8 qPCRLab 9 qPCR
Lab 1 South1.000
Lab 2 South0.8551.000
Lab 3 STELA0.9830.8671.000
Lab 4 qPCR0.6500.6000.5241.000
Lab 5 qPCR0.7700.8550.7500.9001.000
Lab 6 qPCR0.8790.8180.8670.8670.9391.000
Lab 7 qPCR0.7700.8420.7500.8830.9520.9151.000
Lab 8 qPCR0.7700.8060.7000.8670.9520.8670.8671.000
Lab 9 qPCR0.7090.8180.6670.8830.9880.9030.9390.9391.000
Suppl. Table S4.

z-scored results from all participating laboratories in round 1 (top) and 2 (bottom) and inter-laboratory variation in z scores (as standard deviation) between all laboratories and separated by technique

Lab 1Lab 2Lab 3Lab 4Lab 5Lab 6Lab 7Lab 8Lab 9Lab 10lab 10-2SDSDSD South/
SouthSouthSTELAqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRqPCRallqPCRSTELA
round 1
0.453−0.0120.7510.4800.3060.7030.663−0.0330.3190.2880.2710.385
0.3440.9280.540−0.6660.5270.4920.2390.8760.4170.4630.5240.296
2.4141.8942.2801.3951.5381.4192.3701.3301.4840.4530.3890.270
0.1650.670−0.094−0.795−0.426−0.2420.083−0.210−0.4910.4260.2980.390
−1.075−0.727−1.172−1.245−1.358−0.561−1.699−1.0300.3570.3790.246
−1.073−1.004−0.958−1.280−1.303−1.541−1.176−1.159−1.3120.1810.1380.058
−0.061−0.264−0.3200.1770.2010.165−0.1620.1610.1470.2090.1370.136
−1.035−1.416−1.092−1.333−1.474−1.423−1.327−1.3370.1580.0670.205
−0.2950.129−0.5060.8911.1660.4131.3380.9981.4960.7230.3820.324
−0.338−0.457−0.519−0.117−0.054−0.2360.124−0.066−0.0490.2130.1170.092
round 2
0.9981.0291.242−0.2170.4350.3000.6430.5910.124−0.1430.1400.4830.3170.133
1.3491.6351.4541.5491.4550.7781.5211.3861.6241.3970.3980.4140.244
1.4491.6221.9872.0301.2151.5540.9741.3021.2501.1310.169
−0.093−0.0980.043−0.592−0.572−0.455−0.095−0.177−0.705−0.336−0.3650.2470.2100.080
−0.313−0.073−0.231−0.880−0.794−0.817−0.704−0.444−0.803−0.3870.2890.2420.170
−0.233−0.434−0.5030.2220.1460.239−0.2830.1510.1580.2730.9190.3100.2450.157
−0.061−0.264−0.3200.1770.2010.165−0.1620.1610.1470.1000.195
−1.228−1.349−1.077−1.313−1.295−1.446−1.317−1.376−1.336−1.5660.1380.1040.123
−1.252−1.278−1.028−1.296−1.258−1.561−1.517−1.352−1.376−1.329−1.527
−0.428−0.292−0.3510.8531.0810.7540.4290.9531.1930.8191.0240.6150.2350.068
median 0.3100.2450.170
Table 5.

Test results

Analysis
original value in the papercorrected value
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (abstract and results p4 1 st para) Range: 0.63 −0.99Range: 0.25 −0.99
Paired T-test CVs (SB+STELA) vs CVs qPCR (Results p.4 2 nd para) p = 0.001 p = 1.8x10 −7
Linear regression of LTRs South/STELA vs qPCR (p6 1 st para) Offset: −0.55 ± 0.32Offset: −0.49 ± 0.32
Slope: 1.38 ± 0.30Slope: 1.30 ± 0.30
Intra-batch CV values (Table 3, p6 2 nd para) Differences between labsLabs 1 to 10-1 ANOVA, p = 0.299Labs 1 to 10.1 ANOVA, p = 0.299
Labs 1 to 10-2 Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.089
Median intra-batch CVs per technique1.86% (SB); 2.83% (STELA); 4.57% (qPCR)1.86% (SB); 2.93% (STELA); 4.57% (qPCR)
Differences between techniques (Kruskal-Wallis)p = 0.161p = 0.201
Differences between techniques with SOUTH and STELA combined (Mann-Whitney)p = 0.075p = 0.082
  9 in total

1.  Telomere content measurement in human hematopoietic cells: Comparative analysis of qPCR and Flow-FISH techniques.

Authors:  Taylor Wand; Mike Fang; Christina Chen; Nathan Hardy; J Philip McCoy; Bogdan Dumitriu; Neal S Young; Angélique Biancotto
Journal:  Cytometry A       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.355

2.  Telomere dynamics during aging in polygenic left ventricular hypertrophy.

Authors:  Francine Z Marques; Scott A Booth; Priscilla R Prestes; Claire L Curl; Lea M D Delbridge; Paul Lewandowski; Stephen B Harrap; Fadi J Charchar
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 3.107

Review 3.  Genetic Predisposition to Myelodysplastic Syndrome in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Kristen E Schratz; Amy E DeZern
Journal:  Hematol Oncol Clin North Am       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 3.722

Review 4.  Single-molecule telomere length characterization by optical mapping in nano-channel array: Perspective and review on telomere length measurement.

Authors:  Lahari Uppuluri; Dharma Varapula; Eleanor Young; Harold Riethman; Ming Xiao
Journal:  Environ Toxicol Pharmacol       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 4.860

5.  High-throughput single-molecule telomere characterization.

Authors:  Jennifer McCaffrey; Eleanor Young; Katy Lassahn; Justin Sibert; Steven Pastor; Harold Riethman; Ming Xiao
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Analysis of the Association Between TERC and TERT Genetic Variation and Leukocyte Telomere Length and Human Lifespan-A Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Daniela Scarabino; Martina Peconi; Franca Pelliccia; Rosa Maria Corbo
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 4.096

7.  Inflammation, But Not Telomere Length, Predicts Successful Ageing at Extreme Old Age: A Longitudinal Study of Semi-supercentenarians.

Authors:  Yasumichi Arai; Carmen M Martin-Ruiz; Michiyo Takayama; Yukiko Abe; Toru Takebayashi; Shigeo Koyasu; Makoto Suematsu; Nobuyoshi Hirose; Thomas von Zglinicki
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 8.143

8.  Reliability of DNA methylation measures from dried blood spots and mononuclear cells using the HumanMethylation450k BeadArray.

Authors:  Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Dallas R English; Robert J MacInnis; Chol-Hee Jung; Julie K Bassett; Liesel M FitzGerald; Ee Ming Wong; Jihoon E Joo; John L Hopper; Melissa C Southey; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-07-26       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Metabolically healthy obese women have longer telomere length than obese women with metabolic syndrome.

Authors:  Andrea E Iglesias Molli; Julieta Panero; Patricia C Dos Santos; Claudio D González; Jorge Vilariño; Marta Sereday; Gloria E Cerrone; Irma Slavutsky; Gustavo D Frechtel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.