Suppr超能文献

定量PCR与数字液滴PCR技术在人肺癌循环微小RNA定量分析中的比较

A comparison between quantitative PCR and droplet digital PCR technologies for circulating microRNA quantification in human lung cancer.

作者信息

Campomenosi Paola, Gini Elisabetta, Noonan Douglas M, Poli Albino, D'Antona Paola, Rotolo Nicola, Dominioni Lorenzo, Imperatori Andrea

机构信息

Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences (DBSV) and "The Protein Factory", University of Insubria, Via JH Dunant, 3, 21100, Varese, Italy.

The Protein Factory, Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca in Biotecnologie Proteiche, Politecnico di Milano, ICRM-CNR Milano and University of Insubria, Varese, Italy.

出版信息

BMC Biotechnol. 2016 Aug 18;16(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12896-016-0292-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Selected microRNAs (miRNAs) that are abnormally expressed in the serum of patients with lung cancer have recently been proposed as biomarkers of this disease. The measurement of circulating miRNAs, however, requires a highly reliable quantification method. Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is the most commonly used method, but it lacks reliable endogenous reference miRNAs for normalization of results in biofluids. When used in absolute quantification, it must rely on the use of external calibrators. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a recently introduced technology that overcomes the normalization issue and may facilitate miRNA measurement. Here we compared the performance of absolute qPCR and ddPCR techniques for quantifying selected miRNAs in the serum.

RESULTS

In the first experiment, three miRNAs, proposed in the literature as lung cancer biomarkers (miR-21, miR-126 and let-7a), were analyzed in a set of 15 human serum samples. Four independent qPCR and four independent ddPCR amplifications were done on the same samples and used to estimate the precision and correlation of miRNA measurements obtained with the two techniques. The precision of the two methods was evaluated by calculating the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of the four independent measurements obtained with each technique. The CV was similar or smaller in ddPCR than in qPCR for all miRNAs tested, and was significantly smaller for let-7a (p = 0.028). Linear regression analysis of the miRNA values obtained with qPCR and ddPCR showed strong correlation (p < 0.001). To validate the correlation obtained with the two techniques in the first experiment, in a second experiment the same miRNAs were measured in a larger cohort (70 human serum samples) by both qPCR and ddPCR. The correlation of miRNA analyses with the two methods was significant for all three miRNAs. Moreover, in our experiments the ddPCR technique had higher throughput than qPCR, at a similar cost-per-sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses of serum miRNAs performed with qPCR and ddPCR were largely concordant. Both qPCR and ddPCR can reliably be used to quantify circulating miRNAs, however, ddPCR revealed similar or greater precision and higher throughput of analysis.

摘要

背景

最近有人提出,肺癌患者血清中异常表达的某些微小RNA(miRNA)可作为该疾病的生物标志物。然而,循环miRNA的检测需要一种高度可靠的定量方法。定量实时聚合酶链反应(qPCR)是最常用的方法,但它缺乏可靠的内源性参照miRNA来对生物流体中的结果进行标准化。在进行绝对定量时,它必须依赖于外部校准物的使用。数字液滴聚合酶链反应(ddPCR)是最近引入的一项技术,它克服了标准化问题,可能有助于miRNA的检测。在此,我们比较了绝对定量qPCR和ddPCR技术在定量血清中选定miRNA方面的性能。

结果

在第一个实验中,对文献中提出的作为肺癌生物标志物的三种miRNA(miR-21、miR-126和let-7a)在一组15份人血清样本中进行了分析。对相同样本进行了四次独立的qPCR和四次独立的ddPCR扩增,并用于估计两种技术获得的miRNA检测的精密度和相关性。通过计算每种技术获得的四次独立测量的变异系数(CV)来评估两种方法的精密度。对于所有测试的miRNA,ddPCR的CV与qPCR相似或更小,对于let-7a则显著更小(p = 0.028)。对qPCR和ddPCR获得的miRNA值进行线性回归分析显示出强相关性(p < 0.001)。为了验证在第一个实验中两种技术获得的相关性,在第二个实验中,通过qPCR和ddPCR在更大的队列(70份人血清样本)中测量了相同的miRNA。两种方法对miRNA的分析相关性对于所有三种miRNA均显著。此外,在我们的实验中,ddPCR技术的通量高于qPCR,且每份样本的成本相似。

结论

用qPCR和ddPCR进行的血清miRNA分析在很大程度上是一致的。qPCR和ddPCR均可可靠地用于定量循环miRNA,然而,ddPCR显示出相似或更高的精密度以及更高的分析通量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5c17/4991011/670fa894d195/12896_2016_292_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验