| Literature DB >> 31185064 |
Linzhong Zhang1,2, Rui Dong1, Shu Wei1, Han-Chen Zhou1,3, Meng-Xian Zhang1, Karthikeyan Alagarsamy1.
Abstract
Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is routinely conducted for DNA quantitative analysis using the cycle-threshold (Ct) method, which assumes uniform/optimum template amplification. In practice, amplification efficiencies vary from cycle to cycle in a PCR reaction, and often decline as the amplification proceeds, which results in substantial errors in measurement. This study reveals the cumulative error for quantification of initial template amounts, due to the difference between the assumed perfect amplification efficiency and actual one in each amplification cycle. The novel CyC* method involves determination of both the earliest amplification cycle detectable above background ("outlier" C*) and the amplification efficiency over the cycle range from C* to the next two amplification cycles; subsequent analysis allows the calculation of initial template amount with minimal cumulative error. Simulation tests indicated that the CyC* method resulted in significantly less variation in the predicted initial DNA level represented as fluorescence intensity F0 when the outlier cycle C* was advanced to an earlier cycle. Performance comparison revealed that CyC* was better than the majority of 13 established qPCR data analysis methods in terms of bias, linearity, reproducibility, and resolution. Actual PCR test also suggested that relative expression levels of nine genes in tea leaves obtained using CyC* were much closer to the real value than those obtained with the conventional 2-ΔΔCt method. Our data indicated that increasing the input of initial template was effective in advancing emergence of the earliest amplification cycle among the tested variants. A computer program (CyC* method) was compiled to perform the data processing. This novel method can minimize cumulative error over the amplification process, and thus, can improve qPCR analysis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31185064 PMCID: PMC6559663 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218159
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The means and variances for estimation of different parameters in 2000 simulations.
| Outlier | Parameters | Actual value | Mean_pre | Se_pre |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 5 | 4.953 | 0.2209421 | |
| 5 | 5.271170095 | 0.6751955 | ||
| 10 | 10 | 9.9205 | 0.3003745 | |
| 0.5 | 0.440933114 | 0.0688352 | ||
| 15 | 15 | 14.499 | 0.6769255 | |
| 0.05 | 0.039339932 | 0.0238827 | ||
| 20 | 20 | 18.8135 | 1.5082623 | |
| 0.005 | 0.001278754 | 0.0126218 | ||
| 25 | 25 | 23.0105000 | 2.0135583 | |
| 0.0005 | 8.61427E-05 | 0.0014755 |
Comparative performance analysis of CyC* using public datasets.
| Method | Bias | Linearity | Reproduci-bility | Resolution | Mean rank | Friedman | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| With the first three highest DNA input levels | ||||||||||||
| Cy0 | 2.68(1) | 2.97(1) | 5.21(3.5) | 3.16(1) | 1.625 | 1 | ||||||
| MAKERGAUL_C | 5.86(3) | 6.27(4) | 5.21(4.5) | 5.49(5) | 3.875 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Standart_Cq | 3.17(2) | 4.14(3) | 5.48(7) | 4.83(4) | 4 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| CyC* | 6.21(4) | 7.48(5) | 4.57(2) | 5.83(7) | 4.5 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| LinRegPCR | 8.05(8) | 7.54(6) | 3.84(1) | 4.76(3) | 4.5 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| PCR_Miner | 8.49(10) | 3.52(2) | 5.24(5) | 3.79(2) | 4.75 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| MAK2 | 7.16(7) | 7.73(8) | 5.29(6) | 5.68(6) | 6.75 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| LRE_E100 | 7.02(6) | 7.56(7) | 5.95(9) | 6.25(8) | 7.5 | 4 | ||||||
| MAKERGAUL | 6.56(5) | 8.10(10) | 5.83(8) | 6.76(9) | 8 | 4 | 5 | |||||
| 5PSM | 10.22(13) | 7.83(9) | 9.62(10) | 9.35(10) | 10.5 | 5 | 6 | |||||
| 4PLM | 8.19(9) | 9.30(11) | 11.94(11) | 11.89(12) | 10.75 | 6 | ||||||
| DART | 9.67(11) | 9.46(12) | 11.98(12) | 11.67(11) | 11.5 | 6 | 7 | |||||
| LRE_Emax | 9.68(12) | 11.16(13) | 12.37(13) | 12.59(13) | 12.75 | 6 | 7 | |||||
| FPK_PCR | 12.05(14) | 11.95(14) | 12.49(14) | 12.95(14) | 14 | 7 | ||||||
| With all five DNA input levels | ||||||||||||
| Cy0 | 2.25(2) | 3.46(1) | 4.05(2) | 3.63(2) | 1.75 | 1 | ||||||
| LinRegPCR | 7.11(5) | 4.17(2) | 2.68(1) | 2.78(1) | 2.25 | 1 | ||||||
| Standart-Cq | 2.21(1) | 4.90(3) | 4.63(3) | 4.54(3) | 2.5 | 1 | ||||||
| MAKERGAUL_C | 6.73(3) | 5.54(5) | 6.24(6) | 5.79(5) | 4.75 | 2 | ||||||
| PCR-Miner | 8.92(10) | 5.27(4) | 5.52(4) | 5.22(4) | 5.5 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| MAK2 | 7.94(7) | 5.98(6) | 6.16(5) | 6.06(6) | 6 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| CyC* | 6.98(4) | 6.70(8) | 6.52(7) | 6.54(7) | 6.5 | 2 | 3 | |||||
| LRE-E100 | 8.21(8) | 6.17(7) | 6.67(8) | 6.60(8) | 7.75 | 3 | 4 | |||||
| MAKERGAUL | 7.38(6) | 6.98(9) | 6.68(9) | 6.71(9) | 8.25 | 4 | ||||||
| 5PSM | 9.71(12) | 8.60(10) | 8.41(10) | 8.79(10) | 10.5 | 5 | ||||||
| DART | 9.30(11) | 10.65(11) | 10.68(11) | 11.03(11) | 11 | 5 | ||||||
| 4PLM | 8.52(9) | 11.38(12) | 11.67(12) | 11.54(12) | 11.25 | 5 | ||||||
| LRE-Emax | 9.95(14) | 12.03(13) | 12.40(13) | 12.46(13) | 13.25 | 6 | ||||||
| FPK-PCR | 9.78(13) | 13.14(14) | 12.68(14) | 13.29(14) | 13.75 | 6 | ||||||