Droplet Digital PCR versus qPCR for gene expression analysis with low abundant targets: From variable nonsense to publication quality data

Scientific Reports

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Taylor, Sean C ^a   Laperriere, Genevieve ^b   Germain, Hugo ^b  

^a BIO RAD LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À TROIS RIVIÈRES   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; STANDARD; STANDARDS;

GENE DOSAGE; GENE EXPRESSION PROFILING; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; HUMANS; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; REFERENCE STANDARDS;

EID: 85019743322     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02217-x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Tellinghuisen, J. & Spiess, A. N. Bias and imprecision in analysis of real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction data. Anal Chem 87, 8925-8931, doi:10. 1021/acs. Analchem. 5b02057 (2015).
2. Dijkstra, J. R., van Kempen, L. C., Nagtegaal, I. D. & Bustin, S. A. Critical appraisal of quantitative PCR results in colorectal cancer research: can we rely on published qPCR results Mol Oncol 8, 813-818, doi:10. 1016/j. molonc. 2013. 12. 016 (2014).
3. Bustin, S. A. et al. The need for transparency and good practices in the qPCR literature. Nat Methods 10, 1063-1067, doi:10. 1038/ nmeth. 2697 (2013).
4. Carvalhais, V., Delgado-Rastrollo, M., Melo, L. D. & Cerca, N. Controlled RNA contamination and degradation and its impact on qPCR gene expression in S. epidermidis biofilms. J Microbiol Methods 95, 195-200, doi:10. 1016/j. mimet. 2013. 08. 010 (2013).
5. Bustin, S. A. et al. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem 55, 611-622, doi:10. 1373/clinchem. 2008. 112797 (2009).
6. Taylor, S., Wakem, M., Dijkman, G., Alsarraj, M. & Nguyen, M. A practical approach to RT-qPCR-Publishing data that conform to the MIQE guidelines. Methods 50, S1-5, doi:10. 1016/j. ymeth. 2010. 01. 005 (2010).
7. Taylor, S. C. & Mrkusich, E. M. The state of RT-quantitative PCR: firsthand observations of implementation of minimum information for the publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments (MIQE). J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 24, 46-52, doi:10. 1159/000356189 (2014).
8. Bustin, S. A. & Nolan, T. Improving the reliability of peer-reviewed publications: We are all in it together. Biomolecular Detection and Quantification 7, A1-A5, doi:10. 1016/j. bdq. 2015. 11. 002 (2016).
9. Hindson, B. J. et al. High-throughput droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantitation of DNA copy number. Anal Chem 83, 8604-8610, doi:10. 1021/ac202028g (2011).
10. Hindson, C. M. et al. Absolute quantification by droplet digital PCR versus analog real-time PCR. Nat Methods 10, 1003-1005, doi:10. 1038/nmeth. 2633 (2013).
11. Racki, N., Dreo, T., Gutierrez-Aguirre, I., Blejec, A. & Ravnikar, M. Reverse transcriptase droplet digital PCR shows high resilience to PCR inhibitors from plant, soil and water samples. Plant Methods 10, 42, doi:10. 1186/s13007-014-0042-6 (2014).
12. Devonshire, A. S. et al. An international comparability study on quantification of mRNA gene expression ratios: CCQM-P103. 1. Biomolecular Detection and Quantification 8, 15-28, doi:10. 1016/j. bdq. 2016. 05. 003 (2016).
13. Taylor, S. C., Carbonneau, J., Shelton, D. N. & Boivin, G. Optimization of Droplet Digital PCR from RNA and DNA extracts with direct comparison to RT-qPCR: Clinical implications for quantification of Oseltamivir-resistant subpopulations. J Virol Methods 224, 58-66, doi:10. 1016/j. jviromet. 2015. 08. 014 (2015).
14. Hughesman, C. B. et al. A Robust Protocol for Using Multiplexed Droplet Digital PCR to Quantify Somatic Copy Number Alterations in Clinical Tissue Specimens. PLoS One 11, e0161274, doi:10. 1371/journal. pone. 0161274 (2016).
15. Verhaegen, B. et al. Comparison of Droplet Digital PCR and qPCR for the Quantification of Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli in Bovine Feces. Toxins (Basel) 8 (2016).
16. Genovesi, L. A., Anderson, D., Carter, K. W., Giles, K. M. & Dallas, P. B. Identification of suitable endogenous control genes for microRNA expression profiling of childhood medulloblastoma and human neural stem cells. BMC Research Notes 5, 507-507, doi:10. 1186/1756-0500-5-507 (2012).
17. Dijkstra, J. R., Mekenkamp, L. J., Teerenstra, S., De Krijger, I. & Nagtegaal, I. D. MicroRNA expression in formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue using real time quantitative PCR: The strengths and pitfalls. J Cell Mol Med 16, 683-690, doi:10. 1111/j. 1582-4934. 2011. 01467. x (2012).
18. Suslov, O. & Steindler, D. A. PCR inhibition by reverse transcriptase leads to an overestimation of amplification efficiency. Nucleic Acids Res 33, e181-e181, doi:10. 1093/nar/gni176 (2005).
19. Huggett, J. F. et al. Differential susceptibility of PCR reactions to inhibitors: An important and unrecognised phenomenon. BMC Res Notes 1, 70, doi:10. 1186/1756-0500-1-70 (2008).
20. Karlen, Y., McNair, A., Perseguers, S., Mazza, C. & Mermod, N. Statistical significance of quantitative PCR. BMC Bioinformatics 8, 131, doi:10. 1186/1471-2105-8-131 (2007).
21. Bustin, S. A. & Nolan, T. Pitfalls of quantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. J Biomol Tech 15, 155-166 (2004).
22. Colquhoun, D. An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci 1 (2014).
23. Zmienko, A. et al. Selection of Reference Genes for qPCR-and ddPCR-Based Analyses of Gene Expression in Senescing Barley Leaves. PLoS One 10 (2015).
24. Rieu, I. & Powers, S. J. Real-time quantitative RT-PCR: design, calculations, and statistics. Plant Cell 21, 1031-1033, doi:10. 1105/ tpc. 109. 066001 (2009).