4.5 Article

Absolute quantitation of a heteroplasmic mitochondrial DNA deletion using a multiplex three-primer real-time PCR assay

期刊

ANALYTICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 362, 期 2, 页码 193-200

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2006.12.035

关键词

mitochondrial DNA quantitation; heteroplasmy; real-time PCR; molecular beacons

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG020866, 1 K02-AG21453, R01-AG20866, K02 AG021453] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM08700, T32 GM008700] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitation of wild-type and deleted mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) coexisting within the same cell (a.k.a., heteroplasmy) is important in mitochondrial disease and aging. We report the development of a multiplex three-primer PCR assay that is capable of absolute quantitation of wile-type and deleted mtDNA simultaneously. Molecular beacons were designed to hybridize with either type of mtDNA molecule, allowing real-time detection during PCR amplification. The assay is specific and can detect down to six copies of mtDNA, making it suitable for single-cell analyses. The relative standard deviation in the threshold cycle number is approximately 0.6%. Heteroplasmy was quantitated in individual cytoplasmic hybrid cells (cybrids), containing a large mtDNA deletion, and bulk cell samples. Individual cybrid cells contained 100-2600 copies of wild-type mtDNA and 950-4700 copies of deleted mtDNA, and the percentage of heteroplasmy ranged from 43 +/- 16 to 95 +/- 16%. The average amount of total mtDNA was 3800 +/- 1600 copies/cybrid cell, and the average percentage of heteroplasmy correlated well with the bulk cell sample. The single-cell analysis also revealed that heteroplasmy in individual cells is highly heterogeneous. This assay will be useful for monitoring clonal expansions of mtDNA deletions and investigating the role of heteroplasmy in cell-to-cell heterogeneity in cellular models of mitochondrial disease and aging. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. 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