ARC-NET Research Centre, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 6;8(6):e62692. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062692. Print 2013.
Histopathological samples are a treasure-trove of DNA for clinical research. However, the quality of DNA can vary depending on the source or extraction method applied. Thus a standardized and cost-effective workflow for the qualification of DNA preparations is essential to guarantee interlaboratory reproducible results. The qualification process consists of the quantification of double strand DNA (dsDNA) and the assessment of its suitability for downstream applications, such as high-throughput next-generation sequencing. We tested the two most frequently used instrumentations to define their role in this process: NanoDrop, based on UV spectroscopy, and Qubit 2.0, which uses fluorochromes specifically binding dsDNA. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used as the reference technique as it simultaneously assesses DNA concentration and suitability for PCR amplification. We used 17 genomic DNAs from 6 fresh-frozen (FF) tissues, 6 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, 3 cell lines, and 2 commercial preparations. Intra- and inter-operator variability was negligible, and intra-methodology variability was minimal, while consistent inter-methodology divergences were observed. In fact, NanoDrop measured DNA concentrations higher than Qubit and its consistency with dsDNA quantification by qPCR was limited to high molecular weight DNA from FF samples and cell lines, where total DNA and dsDNA quantity virtually coincide. In partially degraded DNA from FFPE samples, only Qubit proved highly reproducible and consistent with qPCR measurements. Multiplex PCR amplifying 191 regions of 46 cancer-related genes was designated the downstream application, using 40 ng dsDNA from FFPE samples calculated by Qubit. All but one sample produced amplicon libraries suitable for next-generation sequencing. NanoDrop UV-spectrum verified contamination of the unsuccessful sample. In conclusion, as qPCR has high costs and is labor intensive, an alternative effective standard workflow for qualification of DNA preparations should include the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit to assess the purity and quantity of dsDNA, respectively.
组织病理学样本是临床研究中 DNA 的宝库。然而,DNA 的质量可能因来源或应用的提取方法而异。因此,标准化和具有成本效益的 DNA 制备物质量评估工作流程对于保证实验室间可重复的结果至关重要。质量评估过程包括双链 DNA(dsDNA)的定量及其是否适用于下游应用(如高通量下一代测序)的评估。我们测试了两种最常用的仪器,以确定它们在该过程中的作用:基于紫外分光光度法的 NanoDrop 和专门结合 dsDNA 的荧光染料的 Qubit 2.0。定量 PCR(qPCR)被用作参考技术,因为它同时评估 DNA 浓度和 PCR 扩增的适用性。我们使用了来自 6 个新鲜冷冻(FF)组织、6 个福尔马林固定石蜡包埋(FFPE)组织、3 个细胞系和 2 个商业制剂的 17 个基因组 DNA。内和操作员间变异性可忽略不计,内方法学变异性最小,而观察到一致的方法间差异。事实上,NanoDrop 测量的 DNA 浓度高于 Qubit,并且与 qPCR 对 dsDNA 定量的一致性仅限于 FF 样品和细胞系中的高分子量 DNA,其中总 DNA 和 dsDNA 量几乎相同。在 FFPE 样品中部分降解的 DNA 中,只有 Qubit 被证明具有高度可重复性,并且与 qPCR 测量结果一致。使用 Qubit 计算的来自 FFPE 样品的 40ng dsDNA 设计了下游应用的多重 PCR 扩增 46 个癌症相关基因的 191 个区域。除了一个样本外,所有样本都产生了适合下一代测序的扩增子文库。NanoDrop UV 光谱证实了不成功样本的污染。总之,由于 qPCR 成本高且劳动强度大,因此用于 DNA 制备物质量评估的替代有效标准工作流程应包括 NanoDrop 和 Qubit 的顺序组合,分别评估 dsDNA 的纯度和数量。