首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>British Journal of Experimental Pathology >Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and QMC-PCR in conjunction with high resolution melting for KRAS/BRAF mutation detection
【2h】

Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and QMC-PCR in conjunction with high resolution melting for KRAS/BRAF mutation detection

机译:焦磷酸测序和QMC-PCR结合高分辨率熔解技术进行KRAS / BRAF突变检测的比较分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Mutation detection is important in cancer management. Several methods are available of which high resolution melting (HRM) analysis and pyrosequencing are the most versatile. We undertook a comparative analysis of these techniques. The methods are: class="unordered" style="list-style-type:disc">To compare the limit of detection (LOD), mutations in KRAS (codon 12/13 hotspot) and BRAF (V600E hotspot) were tested. DNA mixtures containing mutant alleles at a frequency of around 25%/12.5%/6%/3%/ 1.5%/0.8% were analysed.To compare frequency of mutation detection, 22 DNA samples (nine high quality samples from cell lines, 13 low quality samples from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue) were tested for three hotspots in KRAS (codons 12/13, 61 and 146) and two hotspots in BRAF (V600E and exon 11).HRM analysis of KRAS (codon12/13) and BRAF (V600E) showed that 3% and 1.5% mutant alleles respectively could be reliably detected whilst pyrosequencing reliably detected 6% mutant alleles in each case. Of 110 tests performed on 22 DNA samples, in 109 cases HRM and pyrosequencing gave identical results. Two of the samples tested had previously been called as wild type for KRAS by direct Sanger sequencing but were found to be mutant by both HRM and pyrosequencing.Both HRM and pyrosequencing can detect small numbers of mutant alleles although HRM has a lower limit of detection. Both are suitable for use in mutation detection and are both more sensitive than Sanger sequencing.
机译:突变检测在癌症管理中很重要。可以使用几种方法,其中最高分辨率的是高分辨率熔解(HRM)分析和焦磷酸测序。我们对这些技术进行了比较分析。这些方法是: class =“ unordered” style =“ list-style-type:disc”> <!-list-behavior = unordered prefix-word = mark-type = disc max-label-size = 0-为了比较检测限(LOD),测试了KRAS(密码子12/13热点)和BRAF(V600E热点)中的突变。分析了包含突变等位基因的DNA混合物,其频率约为25%/ 12.5%/ 6%/ 3%/ 1.5%/ 0.8%。 为比较突变检测的频率,我们对22个DNA样本(九高检测了来自细胞系的高质量样品,来自福尔马林固定石蜡包埋的组织的13个低质量样品的KRAS中的三个热点(密码子12 / 13、61和146)和BRAF中的两个热点(V600E和外显子11)。对KRAS(密码子12/13)和BRAF(V600E)的HRM分析表明,在每种情况下,分别可以可靠地检测到3%和1.5%的突变等位基因,而焦磷酸测序可以可靠地检测到6%的突变等位基因。在对22个DNA样品进行的110个测试中,在109个案例中,HRM和焦磷酸测序的结果相同。被测样品中有两个以前通过直接Sanger测序被称为KRAS的野生型,但被HRM和焦磷酸测序都突变了.HRM和焦磷酸测序都可以检测到少量的突变等位基因,尽管HRM的检测限较低。两者都适合用于突变检测,并且都比Sanger测序灵敏。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号