4.5 Article

Droplet digital PCR improves urinary exosomal miRNA detection compared to real-time PCR

期刊

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 54-59

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.03.008

关键词

ddPCR; qPCR; Optimization; Exosome; Urine; miRNA; Abbreviations; ddPCR; Droplet digital polymerase chain reaction; qPCR; quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction

资金

  1. Canadian Urological Oncology Group
  2. Ontario Molecular Pathology Research network [CPTRG-004, CPTRG-015]
  3. Kidney Foundation of Canada [KFOC180018]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Object: Quantification of urinary miRNAs can be challenging especially for low abundance miRNAs. We aimed to optimize the quantification of urinary exosomal miRNAs and compare the performance efficiency between droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR). Methods: We optimized a number of parameters for ddPCR such as annealing temperatures, annealing time and PCR cycle number. We also compared the performance of ddPCR and qPCR. Results: By comparing the fluorescence amplification separation, the optimal annealing temperature was 59 degrees C, optimal annealing time was 60s and optimal cycle number was 45 for measuring urinary exosomal miRNAs. ddPCR had much higher technical sensitivity compared to qPCR. The minimal detectable concentration of miR-29a was < 50 copies/mu L by ddPCR compared to 6473 copies/mu L for qPCR. Also, ddPCR generated more consistent results for serially diluted samples compared to qPCR. ddPCR generated smaller within-run variations than qPCR though this did not reach statistical significance. It also resulted in better reproducibility with smaller between-run variations. Conclusions: Optimization of urinary exosomal miRNA ddPCR assay is dependent on assessing key variables including experimental annealing temperature and time as well as the number of PCR cycles. ddPCR has a higher sensitivity, reproducibility, and accuracy in comparison to qPCR.

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