Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Quantitative PCR Telomere Length Assay Precision in Human Saliva Samples

Dana L. Smith, Calvin Wu, S. Gregorich, Guorui Dai, Jue Lin
{"title":"Impact of DNA Extraction Methods on Quantitative PCR Telomere Length Assay Precision in Human Saliva Samples","authors":"Dana L. Smith, Calvin Wu, S. Gregorich, Guorui Dai, Jue Lin","doi":"10.21467/ijm.1.1.5784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Telomere length (TL) has emerged as a promising replicative cellular aging marker that reflects both genetic and non-genetic influences. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) TL measurement has been favored as a cost-effective method that can be easily implemented, especially in population studies with limited quantities of source material. However, several recent reports have revealed inconsistencies in telomere length measurements when applying different DNA extraction methods to the same source material. In this study we tested three DNA extraction methods on saliva samples from 48 participants of the National Growth and Health Study (NGHS) collected with DNA Genotek’s Oragene kit. The chosen extraction kits represent three distinct approaches to genomic DNA extraction from lysed cells and we employed two different operators to carry out all assays on the same samples. We measured DNA yield and quality and calculated the between-operator agreement of qPCR TL measurements (intraclass correlation, ICC). Our analyses showed that while both QIAamp and Agencourt DNAdvance had higher agreement between the 2 operators (ICC=0.937, CI [0.891, 0.965] and ICC=0.95, CI [0.911, 0.972] respectively), compared to PrepIT kit (ICC=0.809, CI [0.678, 0.889]), QIAamp extracted DNA samples were notably degraded. Using generalizability theory, we found that the participant-by-extraction-method interaction explained about 10% of total variation in TL, suggesting that TL differences across methods are somewhat participant-specific. Therefore, our results suggest that the among the three DNA extraction methods tested, Agencourt (magnetic bead purification) is the preferred kit, and we also strongly recommend against combining different extraction methods within a study population.","PeriodicalId":92378,"journal":{"name":"International journal of educational methodology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of educational methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21467/ijm.1.1.5784","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Telomere length (TL) has emerged as a promising replicative cellular aging marker that reflects both genetic and non-genetic influences. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) TL measurement has been favored as a cost-effective method that can be easily implemented, especially in population studies with limited quantities of source material. However, several recent reports have revealed inconsistencies in telomere length measurements when applying different DNA extraction methods to the same source material. In this study we tested three DNA extraction methods on saliva samples from 48 participants of the National Growth and Health Study (NGHS) collected with DNA Genotek’s Oragene kit. The chosen extraction kits represent three distinct approaches to genomic DNA extraction from lysed cells and we employed two different operators to carry out all assays on the same samples. We measured DNA yield and quality and calculated the between-operator agreement of qPCR TL measurements (intraclass correlation, ICC). Our analyses showed that while both QIAamp and Agencourt DNAdvance had higher agreement between the 2 operators (ICC=0.937, CI [0.891, 0.965] and ICC=0.95, CI [0.911, 0.972] respectively), compared to PrepIT kit (ICC=0.809, CI [0.678, 0.889]), QIAamp extracted DNA samples were notably degraded. Using generalizability theory, we found that the participant-by-extraction-method interaction explained about 10% of total variation in TL, suggesting that TL differences across methods are somewhat participant-specific. Therefore, our results suggest that the among the three DNA extraction methods tested, Agencourt (magnetic bead purification) is the preferred kit, and we also strongly recommend against combining different extraction methods within a study population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DNA提取方法对人唾液样品定量PCR端粒长度测定精度的影响
端粒长度(TL)作为一种反映遗传和非遗传影响的有希望的复制细胞衰老标志物已经出现。定量PCR (qPCR) TL测量作为一种成本效益高、易于实施的方法而受到青睐,特别是在源材料数量有限的种群研究中。然而,最近的一些报告揭示了端粒长度测量的不一致性,当应用不同的DNA提取方法对同一来源材料。在这项研究中,我们测试了三种DNA提取方法对48名国家生长与健康研究(NGHS)参与者的唾液样本进行提取,这些唾液样本是用DNA Genotek的Oragene试剂盒收集的。所选择的提取试剂盒代表了从裂解细胞中提取基因组DNA的三种不同方法,我们采用了两种不同的操作人员对同一样品进行所有检测。我们测量了DNA产量和质量,并计算了qPCR TL测量的算子间一致性(类内相关性,ICC)。我们的分析表明,虽然QIAamp和agcourt DNAdvance两种操作器之间的一致性更高(ICC=0.937, CI[0.891, 0.965]和ICC=0.95, CI[0.911, 0.972]),但与PrepIT试剂盒(ICC=0.809, CI[0.678, 0.889])相比,QIAamp提取的DNA样本明显降解。利用概化理论,我们发现参与者与提取方法之间的相互作用解释了大约10%的TL总变异,这表明不同方法之间的TL差异在某种程度上是参与者特有的。因此,我们的结果表明,在测试的三种DNA提取方法中,agcourt(磁珠纯化)是首选试剂盒,我们也强烈建议不要在研究人群中使用不同的提取方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Development and Validation of Instruments for Assessing the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Students in Higher Education The Impact of Proactive Behaviors of Vocational College Teachers on Teaching Performance: The Mediating Role of Organizational Support Perception Reflections on Transformation, Teamwork, and Mentoring: Student Teachers’ Self-Assessed Learning, Equality, and Equity in Competence-Based Education Cognitive Technology to Evaluate the Academic Learning of Computational Cognition in Psychology Students Exploring the Nexus of Organizational Culture, Digital Capabilities, and Organizational Readiness for Change in Primary School in Digital Transformation: A Quantitative Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1