Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Nobody is perfect: comparison of the accuracy of PCR-RFLP and KASP™ method for genotyping. ADH1B and FTO polymorphisms as examples

J. A. Hubáček, H. Pikhart, A. Peasey, R. Kubínová, M. Bobák

. 2015 ; 61 (4) : 156-160.

Jazyk angličtina Země Česko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc16016966

DNA genotyping is among the most common analyses currently performed in scientific research. Two high-throughput genotyping techniques are widely used - the "classic" PCR-RFLP and probe-based methods such as TaqMan® PCR assay or KASP™ genotyping. The probe-based techniques are claimed to be more accurate than PCR-RFLP; however, the evidence for this claim is sparse. We have directly compared results of genotyping of two SNPs (rs1229984 and rs17817449) obtained by the PCR-RFLP and KASP™ in 1,502 adult Caucasians. The results were identical in 97.3 % and 95.9 % cases, respectively. Discrepancies (either different results or result obtained with one but not with the other method) were addressed by confirmatory analysis using direct sequencing. The sequencing revealed that both methods can give incorrect results, but the frequency of incorrect genotyping of rs1229984 and rs17817449 was very low for both methods - 0.1 % and 0.5 %, respectively, for PCR-RFLP and 0.1 % and 0.3 %, respectively, for KASP™. These results confirm that the KASP™ technique is slightly more accurate, but it achieves slightly lower call rates than PCR-RFLP. When carefully set up, both PCR-RFLP and KASP™ could have accuracy of 99.5 % or higher.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc16016966
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200630082756.0
007      
ta
008      
160614s2015 xr d f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    __
$a 10.14712/fb2015061040156 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)26441205
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Hubáček, Jaroslav, $d 1966- $u Center for Experimental Medicine, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic $7 nlk20050169367
245    10
$a Nobody is perfect: comparison of the accuracy of PCR-RFLP and KASP™ method for genotyping. ADH1B and FTO polymorphisms as examples / $c J. A. Hubáček, H. Pikhart, A. Peasey, R. Kubínová, M. Bobák
520    9_
$a DNA genotyping is among the most common analyses currently performed in scientific research. Two high-throughput genotyping techniques are widely used - the "classic" PCR-RFLP and probe-based methods such as TaqMan® PCR assay or KASP™ genotyping. The probe-based techniques are claimed to be more accurate than PCR-RFLP; however, the evidence for this claim is sparse. We have directly compared results of genotyping of two SNPs (rs1229984 and rs17817449) obtained by the PCR-RFLP and KASP™ in 1,502 adult Caucasians. The results were identical in 97.3 % and 95.9 % cases, respectively. Discrepancies (either different results or result obtained with one but not with the other method) were addressed by confirmatory analysis using direct sequencing. The sequencing revealed that both methods can give incorrect results, but the frequency of incorrect genotyping of rs1229984 and rs17817449 was very low for both methods - 0.1 % and 0.5 %, respectively, for PCR-RFLP and 0.1 % and 0.3 %, respectively, for KASP™. These results confirm that the KASP™ technique is slightly more accurate, but it achieves slightly lower call rates than PCR-RFLP. When carefully set up, both PCR-RFLP and KASP™ could have accuracy of 99.5 % or higher.
650    _2
$a alkoholdehydrogenasa $x genetika $7 D000426
650    _2
$a genotyp $7 D005838
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a polymerázová řetězová reakce $7 D016133
650    _2
$a polymorfismus délky restrikčních fragmentů $x genetika $7 D012150
650    _2
$a proteiny $x genetika $7 D011506
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Pikhart, Hynek $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom $7 xx0107140
700    1_
$a Peasey, A. $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
700    1_
$a Kubínová, Růžena, $u National Institute of Public Health, Prague, Czech Republic $d 1947- $7 xx0082854
700    1_
$a Bobák, Martin, $u Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom $d 1963- $7 xx0092245
773    0_
$w MED00011004 $t Folia biologica $x 0015-5500 $g Roč. 61, č. 4 (2015), s. 156-160
856    41
$u https://fb.cuni.cz/file/5786/fb2015a0021.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 970 $c 89 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20160614 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200630082752 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1152704 $s 941442
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 61 $c 4 $d 156-160 $i 0015-5500 $m Folia biologica (Praha) $n Folia biol. (Praha) $x MED00011004
LZP    __
$b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20160614

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...