4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Relative quantification based on logistic models for individual polymerase chain reactions

期刊

STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 30, 页码 5596-5611

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3127

关键词

quantitative RT PCR; PCR efficiency; amplification efficiency; kinetic RT-PCR data; polymerase chain reaction; logistic model

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA075123, CA112147, CA79663, CA95026] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quantitative real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) technology measures molecular variations in specific biomarkers. Relative quantification determines the target expression relative to an external standard or reference sample and should be adjusted for the PCR efficiencies actually achieved. More accurate methods of estimating PCR efficiency require a number of serial dilutions of the target sample, which is not generally feasible for clinical specimens. Alternatively, the efficiency of a single reaction may be estimated by considering kinetic data from this reaction. The current methods of estimating individual reaction efficiency require finding its exponential phase, which may affect the accuracy and precision of efficiency estimates. Thus, a model adequately representing all available kinetic RT PCR data is preferable, but no such model is currently in use for relative quantification. In this work, we use a logistic model for all kinetic data from each RT PCR and propose a new method of efficiency-adjusted relative quantification based on the estimates from the fitted logistic models. This method allows incorporating multiple replicates and possibly multiple reference ('housekeeping') genes for estimating relative expression and corresponding confidence interval. Real kinetic RT PCR data are used to compare the proposed and standard methods. The methods are applied to the clinical data from the ongoing study of guanylyl cyclase C as a biomarker for colorectal cancer. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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