Hastings Waylon J, Eisenberg Dan T A, Shalev Idan
Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Front Genet. 2021 Sep 17;12:728603. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.728603. eCollection 2021.
Precise determination of amplification efficiency is critical for reliable conversion of within-sample changes in fluorescence occurring on a logarithmic scale to between-sample differences in DNA content occurring on a linear scale. This endeavor is especially challenging for the telomere length (TL) quantitative-PCR (qPCR) assay, where amplification efficiency can vary between reactions targeting telomeric repeats (T) and those targeting a single-copy gene (S) to calculate TL as the T/S ratio. We compared seven different approaches toward estimating amplification efficiency, including the standard-curve method utilized by the qPCR instrument software, and alternative approaches which estimate efficiency on a reaction-by-reaction basis using the stand-alone program LinRegPCR. After calculating T/S ratios using efficiency estimates from each approach ( = 363), we tested their relative performance on metrics of assay precision and correlates of external validity including chronological age (age range = 1-72 years), across tissues within-person (leukocyte-buccal), and between parents and offspring. Estimated amplification efficiency for telomere reactions was significantly lower than estimates for single-copy gene reactions. Efficiency estimates for both reaction sets were significantly higher when estimated with the standard-curve method utilized by the qPCR instrument relative to estimates reconstructed during the log-linear phase with LinRegPCR. While estimates of single-copy gene efficiency reconstructed using LinRegPCR measured within 90% of perfect exponential doubling ( = 1.92), estimates generated using the standard-curve method were inflated beyond 100% ( = 2.10-2.12), indicating poor fidelity. Despite differences in raw value, TL measurements calculated with LinRegPCR efficiency estimates exhibited similar relationships with external validity correlates to measurements generated using the qPCR instrument software. Since methods to estimate amplification efficiency can vary across qPCR instruments, we suggest that future analyses empirically consider external methods of efficiency calculations such as LinRegPCR, and that already generated data be re-analyzed to glean possible improvements.
精确测定扩增效率对于将对数尺度上样本内荧光变化可靠地转换为线性尺度上样本间DNA含量差异至关重要。对于端粒长度(TL)定量聚合酶链反应(qPCR)测定而言,这一工作尤其具有挑战性,因为在计算TL作为T/S比率时,针对端粒重复序列(T)的反应与针对单拷贝基因(S)的反应之间的扩增效率可能会有所不同。我们比较了七种不同的估计扩增效率的方法,包括qPCR仪器软件使用的标准曲线法,以及使用独立程序LinRegPCR逐反应估计效率的替代方法。在使用每种方法的效率估计值(n = 363)计算T/S比率后,我们在测定精密度指标以及外部有效性相关性方面测试了它们的相对性能,这些相关性包括 chronological age(年龄范围 = 1 - 72岁)、个体内不同组织(白细胞 - 颊黏膜)以及亲子之间。端粒反应的估计扩增效率显著低于单拷贝基因反应的估计效率。与使用LinRegPCR在对数线性阶段重建的估计值相比,当使用qPCR仪器的标准曲线法进行估计时,两个反应组的效率估计值均显著更高。虽然使用LinRegPCR重建的单拷贝基因效率估计值在完美指数加倍的90%以内(n = 1.92),但使用标准曲线法生成的估计值却膨胀超过100%(n = 2.10 - 2.12),表明保真度较差。尽管原始值存在差异,但使用LinRegPCR效率估计值计算的TL测量值与使用qPCR仪器软件生成的测量值在外部有效性相关性方面表现出相似的关系。由于估计扩增效率的方法可能因qPCR仪器而异,我们建议未来的分析应根据经验考虑诸如LinRegPCR等外部效率计算方法,并且对已生成的数据进行重新分析以获取可能的改进。