Literature DB >> 28193036

International Comparison of Enumeration-Based Quantification of DNA Copy-Concentration Using Flow Cytometric Counting and Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction.

Hee-Bong Yoo1,2, Sang-Ryoul Park1,2, Lianhua Dong3, Jing Wang3, Zhiwei Sui3, Jernej Pavšič4, Mojca Milavec4, Muslum Akgoz5, Erkan Mozioğlu5, Philippe Corbisier6, Mátrai Janka6, Bruno Cosme7, Janaina J de V Cavalcante7, Roberto Becht Flatshart7, Daniel Burke8, Michael Forbes-Smith8, Jacob McLaughlin8, Kerry Emslie8, Alexandra S Whale9, Jim F Huggett9, Helen Parkes9, Margaret C Kline10, Jo Lynne Harenza10, Peter M Vallone10.   

Abstract

Enumeration-based determination of DNA copy-concentration was assessed through an international comparison among national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated institutes (DIs). Enumeration-based quantification does not require a calibration standard thereby providing a route to "absolute quantification", which offers the potential for reliable value assignments of DNA reference materials, and International System of Units (SI) traceability to copy number 1 through accurate counting. In this study, 2 enumeration-based methods, flow cytometric (FCM) counting and the digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR), were compared to quantify a solution of the pBR322 plasmid at a concentration of several thousand copies per microliter. In addition, 2 orthogonal chemical-analysis methods based on nucleotide quantification, isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) and capillary electrophoresis (CE) were applied to quantify a more concentrated solution of the plasmid. Although 9 dPCR results from 8 laboratories showed some dispersion (relative standard deviation [RSD] = 11.8%), their means were closely aligned with those of the FCM-based counting method and the orthogonal chemical-analysis methods, corrected for gravimetric dilution factors. Using the means of dPCR results, the RSD of all 4 methods was 1.8%, which strongly supported the validity of the recent enumeration approaches. Despite a good overall agreement, the individual dPCR results were not sufficiently covered by the reported measurement uncertainties. These findings suggest that some laboratories may not have considered all factors contributing to the measurement uncertainty of dPCR, and further investigation of this possibility is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28193036     DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b03076

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anal Chem        ISSN: 0003-2700            Impact factor:   6.986


  7 in total

1.  Digital PCR can augment the interpretation of RT-qPCR Cq values for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics.

Authors:  Alexandra S Whale; Eva K von der Heide; Max Kohlenberg; Anja Brinckmann; Silke Baedker; Oezlem Karalay; Ana Fernandez-Gonzalez; Eloise J Busby; Stephen A Bustin; Heiko Hauser; Andreas Missel; Denise M O'Sullivan; Jim F Huggett; Michael W Pfaffl; Tania Nolan
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2021-08-26       Impact factor: 4.647

2.  Improvement of digital PCR conditions for direct detection of KRAS mutations.

Authors:  Jina Lee; Ji Hyun Kim; Sun Hyung Kang; Hee Min Yoo
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 2.352

3.  Investigation of direct counting and sizing of DNA fragments in flow applying an improved data analysis and correction method.

Authors:  Martin Hussels; Susanne Engel; Nicole Bock
Journal:  Biomol Detect Quantif       Date:  2019-03-16

4.  Highly accurate and sensitive diagnostic detection of SARS-CoV-2 by digital PCR.

Authors:  Lianhua Dong; Junbo Zhou; Chunyan Niu; Quanyi Wang; Yang Pan; Sitong Sheng; Xia Wang; Yongzhuo Zhang; Jiayi Yang; Manqing Liu; Yang Zhao; Xiaoying Zhang; Tao Zhu; Tao Peng; Jie Xie; Yunhua Gao; Di Wang; Xinhua Dai; Xiang Fang
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 6.057

Review 5.  Metrological framework to support accurate, reliable, and reproducible nucleic acid measurements.

Authors:  Mojca Milavec; Megan H Cleveland; Young-Kyung Bae; Robert I Wielgosz; Maxim Vonsky; Jim F Huggett
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2021-11-04       Impact factor: 4.142

6.  Applicability of Control Materials To Support Gene Promoter Characterization and Expression in Engineered Cells Using Digital PCR.

Authors:  Ana Fernandez-Gonzalez; Simon Cowen; Juhyun Kim; Carole A Foy; Jose Jimenez; Jim F Huggett; Alexandra S Whale
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 6.986

Review 7.  Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Diagnostic Tools: A Focus on Detection Technologies and Limitations.

Authors:  Ahmad Qasem; Ameera M Shaw; Erij Elkamel; Saleh A Naser
Journal:  Curr Issues Mol Biol       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 2.976

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.