4.5 Article

Preventing the pollution of mitochondrial datasets with nuclear mitochondrial paralogs (numts)

期刊

MITOCHONDRION
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 246-254

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mito.2010.10.004

关键词

Mitochondrial DNA; numt; Paralog; Enrichment; Long-range PCR; Dilution

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-08-JCJC-0120-01]
  2. Institut Universitaire de France
  3. Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) [ANR-08-JCJC-0120] Funding Source: Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular tools have become prominent in ecology and evolution. A target of choice for molecular ecologists and evolutionists is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), whose many advantages have also convinced broad-scale, pragmatic programmes such as barcode initiatives. Of course, mtDNA is also of interest to human geneticists investigating mitochondrial diseases. Studies using mtDNA are however put at great risk by the inadvertent co-amplification or preferred amplification of nuclear pseudogenes (numts). A posteriori analysis of putative mtDNA sequences can help in removing numts but faces severe limitations (e.g. recently translocated numts will most of the time go unnoticed). Counter-measures taken a priori, i.e. explicitly designed for avoiding numt co-amplification or preferred amplification, are appealing but have never been properly assessed. Here we investigate the efficiency of four such measures (mtDNA enrichment, cDNA amplification, long-range amplification and pre-PCR dilution) on a common set of numt cases, showing that mtDNA enrichment is the worst performer while the use of pre-PCR dilution is a simple, yet robust method to prevent the pollution of putative mtDNA datasets with numts. Therefore, straightforward recommendations can be made that, if followed, will considerably increase the confidence in the mitochondrial origin of any mtDNA-like sequence. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. and Mitochondria Research Society. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据