4.5 Article

A simple, high sensitivity mutation screening using Ampligase mediated T7 endonuclease I and Surveyor nuclease with microfluidic capillary electrophoresis

期刊

ELECTROPHORESIS
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 788-796

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/elps.201100460

关键词

Ampligase DNA ligase; Enzyme mismatch cleavage; Mutation screening; Surveyor nuclease; T7 Endonuclease I

资金

  1. Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (Biomedical Research Council, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mutation and polymorphism detection is of increasing importance for a variety of medical applications, including identification of cancer biomarkers and genotyping for inherited genetic disorders. Among various mutation-screening technologies, enzyme mismatch cleavage (EMC) represents a great potential as an ideal scanning method for its simplicity and high efficiency, where the heteroduplex DNAs are recognized and cleaved into DNA fragments by mismatch-recognizing nucleases. Thereby, the enzymatic cleavage activities of the resolving nucleases play a critical role for the EMC sensitivity. In this study, we utilized the unique features of microfluidic capillary electrophoresis and de novo gene synthesis to explore the enzymatic properties of T7 endonuclease I and Surveyor nuclease for EMC. Homoduplex and HE DNAs with specific mismatches at desired positions were synthesized using PCR (polymerase chain reaction) gene synthesis. The effects of nonspecific cleavage, preference of mismatches, exonuclease activity, incubation time, and DNA loading capability were systematically examined. In addition, the utilization of a thermostable DNA ligase for real-time ligase mediation was investigated. Analysis of the experimental results has led to new insights into the enzymatic cleavage activities of T7 endonuclease I and Surveyor nuclease, and aided in optimizing EMC conditions, which enhance the sensitivity and efficiency in screening of unknown DNA variations.

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