-
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
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
NLK
Free Medical Journals
od 2000
Freely Accessible Science Journals
od 2000
ProQuest Central
od 2005-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2005-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
od 2000
- MeSH
- alkoholdehydrogenasa genetika MeSH
- genotyp MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- polymerázová řetězová reakce MeSH
- polymorfismus délky restrikčních fragmentů genetika MeSH
- proteiny genetika MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
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