Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Research Notes

What do you think about BMC? Take part in

Open Access

The source of SYBR green master mix determines outcome of nucleic acid amplification reactions

  • Jianxin Yang1,
  • Berit Kemps-Mols1,
  • Marijke Spruyt-Gerritse1,
  • Jacqueline Anholts1,
  • Frans Claas1 and
  • Michael Eikmans1Email author
BMC Research Notes20169:292

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2093-4

Received: 17 May 2016

Accepted: 20 May 2016

Published: 4 June 2016

Abstract

Background

Quantitative (q) PCR by amplification of nucleic acid with a fluorescent dye is widely used. Selection of adequate PCR reagents and devices is relevant to achieve reliable and consistent data. Our main objective was to test the robustness of different commercial SYBR green PCR mixes with respect to specificity and sensitivity of the PCR assay, across various PCR machines (Light Cycler 96, ViiA7) and amplification protocols. Herein, we applied PCR protocols for determining mRNA transcript levels, DNA copy numbers, and DNA genotype.

Results

First, we set up 70 primer-based assays that targeted immune-related mRNA transcripts. Of the 70 assays 66 (94.3 %) resulted in a single melting curve peak, indicating specificity of the amplification, with PCR mixes from large vendors (Roche, ABI, Bio-Rad). But this was only seen when the PCR protocol that was indicated in the vendor’s guidelines for each particular mix was applied. When deviating from the prescribed protocol, suboptimal melting curves were most often seen when using Roche SYBR green. With respect to PCR yields, the use of ABI mix more often led to lower Cq values. Second, we set up 20 primer-selective PCR assays to target different insertion-deletion and single nucleotide polymorphism regions throughout the genome. The variation in delta Cq between positive and negative DNA samples among the PCR assays was the lowest when using ABI master mix. Finally, the quality of high resolution melting (HRM) assays for DNA genotyping was compared between four commercial HRM PCR mixes (Roche, Bioline, PCR Biosystems, ABI). Only Roche and ABI mixes produced optimal clusters of melting profiles that clearly distinguished genotype variants.

Conclusions

The current results show a preference for the use of ABI mix when it comes to obtaining higher sensitivity in cDNA analysis and a higher consistency among assays in distinguishing DNA genotypes among different individuals. For HRM assays, it is advisable to use master mix from a relatively large vendor.

Keywords

Quantitative PCRSpecificityGenomic DNAmRNAHigh resolution meltingPerformance

Background

Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is widely used to measure gene expression and DNA copies [1, 2]. The most commonly used methods for quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) are based on non-specific SYBR green chemistry and specific Taqman probe chemistry [3]. Intercalating dyes, which bind double-stranded (ds) DNA with high efficiency in the reaction, are most commonly used. When it binds to dsDNA, the fluorescence signal enhances >1000-fold compared to situation where it is unbound and in free solution [4, 5]. The overall fluorescence intensity is proportional to the amplified products and increases as the target is amplified [6]. A drawback of SYBR green I is its lack of specificity: binding to nonspecific dsDNA in the real-time PCR reaction hampers reliable quantification of the specific product [7]. Presence of non-specific PCR products can be ruled out by performing a melting curve analysis [8]. Therefore, the use of DNA-binding dyes may require more extensive optimization. In general, when performing singleplex assays the use of SYBR green dye is preferable over that of probe chemistry, since the former assays are easier to design, faster to set up, and less expensive [9, 10].

High resolution melting (HRM) analysis is a novel, closed-tube, high-throughput technology for identifying mutations and polymorphisms in nucleic acid sequences [11, 12]. The combination of a saturating, DNA-binding dye with superior instrumentation and sophisticated software enables the detection of genetic variations by analyzing PCR melting curves at a finer temperature resolution [11]. HRM reactions generate specific and sensitive melting profiles. They can be used for genotyping, mutation screening, and methylation analysis based on heterozygosity, length, and GC content [13].

Numerous real-time PCR devices and master mixes are available on the market. To perform reliable high-quality data, PCR master mix, and equipment need to be optimal. However, general lab optimized protocols are widely used for different gene targets and performed diversely between conditions. Our main objective was to test the robustness of different commercial SYBR green PCR mixes with respect to specificity and sensitivity of the PCR assay. This was tested across various PCR machines and amplification protocols for assessment of mRNA transcript levels, DNA copy numbers, and DNA genotypes.

Methods

PCR machines, SYBR green mixes and HRM mixes

Equipment used included the Light Cycler 96 (Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) and the ViiA 7 (Applied Biosystems by Life Technologies, Austin, TX, USA) real-time PCR machines. Performance of three different PCR mixes was compared, including SYBR Select Master Mix (Applied Biosystems), iQ SYBR green supermix (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA), and FastStart essential DNA Green Master (Roche Diagnostics). We evaluated four different HRM mixes on the lighter cycler 96, namely high resolution melting master (Roche Diagnostics), SensiFast HRM Kit (Bioline, London, UK), qPCRBIO HRM Mix(PCR Biosystems, London, UK), and MeltDoctor HRM Master Mix (Applied Biosystems).

Nucleic acid extraction and cDNA synthesis

DNA was isolated using chemagic DNA Blood2k Kit by chemagic MSM I equipment (PerkinElmer), and the quantity was measured on a NanoDrop 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc, Asheville NC). Isolated DNA samples were diluted to 10 ng/µl with nuclease-free water and used as template in qPCR and HRM assays.

RNA was extracted using the NucleoSpin miRNA kit (Macherey–Nagel, Germany) from peripheral blood cells obtained by ficoll or percoll gradients, namely cell subsets positive for either CD3 (T cells) or CD14 (monocytes). Protocols for total RNA purification were followed as described by the manufacturer. RNA quantity was determined on a NanoDrop 2000 Spectrophotometer. RNA quality was evaluated using the StdSense Analysis kit and the Experion RNA analyzer (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA). Complementary DNA was synthesized from 150 ng of total RNA (RNA quality index >7.0) following the manufacturer’s manuals: Superscript III RT (Invitrogen; 200 U of RT), 0.5 mM dNTP, 40 U of RNAse OUT, and 5 mM DTT. RNA was combined with oligo-dT (Invitrogen; 0.25 mg) and random nucleotide hexamers (Invitrogen; 0.25 mg), and incubated at 65 °C for 5 min [14]. The tubes were immediately placed on ice after incubation, and the remaining constituents were added. The reactions were allowed to proceed at 25 °C for 5 min, at 50 °C for 60 min, and then terminated at 70 °C for 5 min.

PCR primers

Optimal primers pairs for cDNA assays were selected using Primer 3 version 4.0.0 [15, 16] or Universal Probe Library. To prevent amplification of genomic DNA, forward and reverse primers for majority of the transcripts were designed to target separate exons, spanning at least one intron with a size of 800 bp or more. The PCR efficiency of amplification was calculated by the software using the four-fold serial dilution of pooled cDNA, and 90–110 % was considered as acceptable. The primer selection for genomic DNA (gDNA) assays (S01a, S01b, S03, S04a, S04b, S05a, S05b, S06, S07a, S07b, S08a, S08b, S09a, S09b, S10a, S10b, S11a) was based on a previous study (Table 1) [17]. Firstly, high percentage of heterozygous biallelic polymorphism in the general population was selected. Second, one of the primer sequences was specific to each allele of polymorphic site, whereas the other one was picked in a common region. HRM primers were designed to amplify a short DNA segment covering polymorphism rs2230199.
Table 1

Primer sequences and amplification efficiency

Target

Forward primer (5′–3′)

Reverse primer (5′–3′)

Amplicon (bp)

Reagent

Efficiency

GAPDH

ACCCACTCCTCCACCTTTGAC

TCCACCACCCTGTTGCTGTAG

110

ABI

0.98

TLR2

GTGATAGGTGTGAGGCAGGT

GTGGCCGCCTTGATTCATAG

136

ABI

0.93

CD1c

TTTCTGCAGTTTCTGCTGCTA

GAGACGTGTTCCTGGGATG

74

ABI

1.06

CD54

CCTTCCTCACCGTGTACTGG

AGCGTAGGGTAAGGTTCTTGC

90

ABI

1.05

CD68

TTCCCCTATGGACACCTCAG

TTGTACTCCACCGCCATGTA

86

ABI

1

CCL4

CCTGCTGCTTTTCTTACAC

CACAGACTTGCTTGCTTC

126

ABI

1.09

IL4

GTCTCACCTCCCAACTGCTT

GTTACGGTCAACTCGGTGCA

157

Bio rad

0.99

IL4

GTCTCACCTCCCAACTGCTT

GTTACGGTCAACTCGGTGCA

157

Roche

1.01

IL8

GAAGGAACCATCTCACTG

CCACTCTCAATCACTCTC

200

Bio rad

0.96

IL8

GAAGGAACCATCTCACTG

CCACTCTCAATCACTCTC

200

Roche

0.94

IL1RN

CCTGTCCTGTGTCAAGTCTGG

AGCGGATGAAGGCGAAGC

110

ABI

0.93

CEBPB

CGCTTACCTCGGCTACCA

ACGAGGAGGACGTGGAGAG

65

ABI

0.94

IL-18

TGCATCAACTTTGTGGCAAT

ATAGAGGCCGATTTCCTTGG

169

ABI

1

V-FOS

ACTACCACTCACCCGCAGAC

CCAGGTCCGTGCAGAAGT

75

ABI

0.98

Egr-1

AGCCCTACGAGCACCTGAC

GGTTTGGCTGGGGTAACTG

92

ABI

0.9

Egr-2

TTGACCAGATGAACGGAGTG

TGGTTTCTAGGTGCAGAGACG

121

ABI

0.92

CD43

AAGATGTCATCAGTGCCCCA

CACGGTGTGGGATCCTAGAG

90

ABI

0.93

CCR7

GGTGGTGGCTCTCCTTGTC

ACTGTGGTGTTGTCTCCGATG

84

ABI

1.1

CD40

GCAGGCACAAACAAGACTGA

ATGGCAAACAGGATCCCGAA

95

ABI

0.91

S01a

GGTACCGGGTCTCCACATGA

GGGAAAGTCACTCACCCAAGG

   

S01b

GTACCGGGTCTCCACCAGG

GGGAAAGTCACTCACCCAAGG

   

S03

CTTTTGCTTTCTGTTTCTTAAGGGC

TCAATCTTTGGGCAGGTTGAA

   

S04a

CTGGTGCCCACAGTTACGCT

AAGGATGCGTGACTGCTATGG

   

S04b

CTGGTGCCCACAGTTACGCT

AGGATGCGTGACTGCTCCTC

   

S05a

AAAGTAGACACGGCCAGACTTAGG

CATCCCCACATACGGAAAAGA

   

S05b

AGTTAAAGTAGACACGGCCTCCC

CATCCCCACATACGGAAAAGA

   

S06

CAGTCACCCCGTGAAGTCCT

TTTCCCCCATCTGCCTATTG

   

S07a

TGGTATTGGCTTTAAAATACTGGG

TGTACCCAAAACTCAGCTGCA

   

S07b

GGTATTGGCTTTAAAATACTCAACC

CAGCTGCAACAGTTATCAACGTT

   

S08a

CTGGATGCCTCACTGATCCA

TGGGAAGGATGCATATGATCTG

   

S08b

GCTGGATGCCTCACTGATGTT

TGGGAAGGATGCATATGATCTG

   

S09a

GGGCACCCGTGTGAGTTTT

TCAGCTTGTCTGCTTTCTGGAA

   

S09b

GGGCACCCGTGTGAGTTTT

CAGCTTGTCTGCTTTCTGCTG

   

S10a

GCCACAAGAGACTCAG

TGGCTTCCTTGAGGTGGAAT

   

S10b

TTAGAGCCACAAGAGACAACCAG

TGGCTTCCTTGAGGTGGAAT

   

S11a

TAGGATTCAACCCTGGAAGC

CCAGCATGCACCTGACTAACA

   

Hy

TTCTGGAACCTTTCTTTTCAGGC

ACTTCCCTCTGACATTACCTGATAATTG

   

HA-8p

TGCAGTCAGCAGATCACCC

CTTCTGGGCAACAGTTATGGA

   

KIR3 DS1

CATCRgTTCCATgATgCg

CCACgATgTCCAggggA

   

TCCATCggTCCCATgATgTT

   

qPCR and HRM assays and PCR protocols

The 20-µL qPCR reaction system (cDNA assays) contained 4 µL of 25-times-diluted cDNA, 10 pmol forward and reverse primers, 10 µL of PCR Mix, and nuclease-free water. The 20-µL qPCR reaction (DNA assays) included 50–200 ng DNA, 10 µL of SYBR PCR Mix, 6 pmol forward and reverse primers, and nuclease-free water. The Roche HRM master mix reaction consisted of 7.5 µl of mix, 3 pmol forward and reverse primers, 3 mM MgCl2, 20 ng DNA, and nuclease-free water. Besides, the 15-µl HRM PCR reaction consisted of 7.5 µl of HRM mix, 6 pmol forward and reverses primers, 20 ng DNA, and nuclease-free water.

The PCR program (cDNA assays) strictly followed the prescribed protocols for each PCR mix (Table 2). Upon completion of each run, a melting curve analysis was performed to check specificity of the primers. In some occasions, the PCR product was additionally analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis. The quantification cycle (Cq) value represents the number of cycles needed to reach a set threshold fluorescence signal level, which is a measure of number of cDNA or DNA copies.
Table 2

Prescribed PCR amplification program

Mix

Steps

Temperature °C

Duration

Cycles

ABI

UDG activation

50

2 min

Hold

Activation

95

2 min

Hold

Denature

95

15 s

40

Anneal/extend

60

60 s

Melt curve analysis

95

10 s

 
 

60

60 s

 
 

97

5 s

 

BioRad

Activation

95

3 min

Hold

Denature

95

15 s

40

Anneal/extend

60

45 s

Melt curve analysis

95

10 s

 
 

55

60 s

 
 

95

15 s

 

Roche

Activation

95

10 min

Hold

Denature

95

10 s

40

Anneal

60

10 s

Extend

72

10 s

Melt curve analysis

95

10 s

 
 

65

60 s

 
 

95

15 s

 

General lab PCR program

Activation

95

10 min

Hold

Denature

95

15 s

45

Anneal/extend

60

60 s

Melt curve analysis

95

10 s

 
 

55

60 s

 
 

97

5 s

 

The ramp of each machine were set to default

The HRM PCR program consisted of a pre-incubation for 10 min, followed by 45 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 10 s, annealing at 60 °C for 15 s, and extension at 72 °C for 15 s. Melting analysis was performed by first heating to 95 °C for 1 min, cooling to 40 °C for 1 min, heating to 65 °C, and then melting with continuous acquisition (15 readings/°C) of fluorescence signal until 97 °C. Fifteen DNA samples were analyzed, 12 of which were homozygous (GG) and three of which were heterozygous (GC) at the SNP location.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the figshare repository 10.6084/m9.figshare.3207802 and https://www.figshare.com/articles/The_source_of_SYBR_Green_master_mix_determines_outcome_of_nucleic_acid_amplification_reactions/3207802. The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article (and its Additional file 1).

Ethics (and consent to participate)

Written informed consent was obtained from donors for use of part of the human material for scientific purposes. Samples were processed and analyzed in an anonymous way. Blood samples used for nucleic acid analysis were obtained in the context of studies performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki Good Clinical Guidelines and approved by the local medical ethics committee.

Data analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistics 20. The mean delta Cq values (positive minus negative gDNA samples) between PCR mixes were compared by paired T test.

Results

Amplification of cDNA

Melting profiles represent a suitable means to distinguish amplified products from primer dimer and other nonspecific amplification artifacts [8, 18]. In terms of cDNA templates, 79 immune-related transcripts were targeted by specific primer pairs in PCR reactions containing ABI, Bio Rad or Roche PCR Mix on a Light Cycler 96 PCR device. Of these, nine primer pairs showed low performance due to either the absence of amplification product or nonspecific amplification with any of the three different mixes. These were left out of further analysis. The remaining 70 transcripts were classified into four categories according to the melting profiles obtained after PCR with the three different master mixes (Table 3). Sixty-six primer sets (94.3 %) generated a single sharp melting peak with all three SYBR green PCR mixes in case of adherence to the suggested PCR protocol in the vendors’ guidelines (Table 3, category 1a). In case of using Roche mix in combination with a general lab PCR protocol (Table 2), 13 primer pairs (18.6 %) led to suboptimal melting peak after the PCR indicating generation of a specific PCR products (Table 3, category 1b). The primer pair targeting CCL4 showed sharp and specific melting curves only with the ABI and Bio Rad master mix (category 2), while CCL18 showed a single and smooth melting peak only with the Roche mix (category 4). Two primers pairs (those targeting IL8 and IL4; category 3) demonstrated one sharp melting peak with Bio Rad and Roche but negative amplification with ABI mix. Representative melting profiles and gel plots for the categories are shown in Fig. 1.
Table 3

Categories classified by amplification specificity

Cat

ABI

Bio-Rad

Roche

Transcripts

Number

1a

Y

Y

Y

GAPDH, CD23, CD68, TLR9, Arg1, PDL1, CXCR4, COX2, B-actin, CXCR1, CCL2, CCL3, CD115, CD117, CD11b, CD163, CD14, CD66b, CD86, HLA-DR, IL10, HO-1, IL1b, IL6, S100A9, STAT4, STAT6, STAT3, TGFB1, TNFa, CCL5, CCL7, V-JUN, CSF3R-2, CD13-2, CCR5, CD31, CD44, CD54, CD64, CD16a, CD205, NFkB, S100A8, CCR2, CD62L, MSR1, CCL24, CD15, CD209, CLEC4C, FLT3, IFNγ

66

1b

Y

Y

Y/Na

IL-1RN, IL-18, CEBPB, v-FOS, Egr1, Egr2, CD54, CD200R, CD40, CD1c, TLR2, CD43, CCR7

2

Y

Y

N

CCL4

1

3

Neg

Y

Y

IL8, IL4

2

4

Neg

N

Y

CCL18

1

Y a single smooth sharp peak; N more than two or unsmooth peaks; Neg no amplification

aWith Roche mix, the primers generated specific PCR amplicons in the melting curve analysis, only when the suggested PCR protocol from the vendor’s guideline (Table 2) was used. With a general lab PCR protocol (Table 2) suboptimal melting curves were observed indicating additional aspecific PCR products

Fig. 1

Not all PCR mixes result in optimal specificity of cDNA amplification reactions. The performance of three commercial SYBR green PCR mixes was compared by amplifying cDNA with 70 primer-based assays targeting different mRNA transcripts. A single melting curve peak indicates specificity of the amplification. The figure shows examples of melting curves and corresponding gel blots for several primer sets from Table 3, in situations where all three mixes gave optimal results and where one or more mixes resulted in a suboptimal amplification reaction

The Cq value is another relevant outcome parameter in quantitative PCR. The difference in Cq value between different PCR mixes was only calculated for the primer sets that gave a specific PCR product with at least two mixes (Fig. 2). Delta Cq between PCR mixes varied according to the transcript analyzed and the PCR machine that was used. GAPDH, TLR2, and CD1c showed lower Cq values by Roche mix on a LC96, while lower Cq values were obtained by ABI mix on a ViiA7. Two primer pairs (CD54 and CD68) generated lower Cq values by ABI mix compared with others, which was most prominently observed when using the Viia7 machine. The primer pair of CCL4 produced higher Cq values by ABI mix than the Bio Rad mix on both instruments. Transcript targeting IL8 demonstrated higher Cq values by Roche mix than by Bio Rad mix, whereas IL4 showed lower Cq values by Roche mix on two machines (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Delta-Cq values between different PCR mixes after cDNA amplification with only those primer pair/PCR mix combinations which led to one specific melting peak. Results for BioRad PCR mix represent the reference (set to zero; black dotted line). Red and blue flags represent results obtained with mixes from ABI and Roche, respectively

Amplification signals in the no template control (NTC) sample are indicative for primer dimer formation or contamination problems [19]. The Bio Rad and Roche mix occasionally showed positive signals with high Cq values (Cq >40) in NTC, while the ABI mix exhibited negative amplification (Cq >45) in most cases (Additional file 1: Figure S1). On minus-reverse-transcriptase controls the ABI mix generated negative amplification (Cq > 40) more frequently than the other mixes (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Amplification of genomic DNA

Twenty primer-selective PCR SNP assays on genomic DNA were conducted on two different PCR devices. An optimal annealing temperature of 61 °C was employed, as tested in a temperature gradient. Absolute Cq values for DNA samples that should be positive or negative for the targeted SNPs are shown in Fig. 3a. The mean ΔCq for the 20 assays between positive and negative genomic DNAs was higher with the ABI mix than with the Roche mix (Fig. 3b), but this difference was not significant. However, of all mixes tested, the use of ABI mix led to the smallest variation in ΔCq among the different PCR assays (Fig. 3b).
Fig. 3

Cq difference between positive and negative genomic DNAs obtained with different PCR mixes and machines. a Cq values of 20 primer-selective PCR SNP assays for gDNA samples that should be positive (green dots) or negative (red squares). b Individual delta-Cq values for 20 primer-selective PCR SNP assays between positive and negative gDNA samples for ABI and Roche PCR mixes on two different PCR machines. The flags indicate means ± SD

Genotyping by HRM

For high resolution melting analysis the fluorescent data were automatically normalized and derivative melting curve plots were generated (Fig. 4). Both the Roche (panel A) and ABI HRM mix (panel D) were able to distinguish the three heterozygous samples (GC, orange lines) from the 12 homozygous samples (GG, blue lines). The melt curves from Roche HRM mix were more tightly grouped and easier to separate into clear clusters than ABI HRM mix. With the Bioline HRM mix (panel C) it was also possible to correctly classify the DNA samples according to the right genotype, but the curves were rather unsmooth and tangled. With the PCR Biosystems mix (panel B) none of the three heterozygous DNA samples were correctly classified.
Fig. 4

Effect of the type of high resolution melting (HRM) PCR mix on melting curve profiles for distinction of different genotypes. Three DNA samples heterozygous (GC) and 12 DNA samples homozygous (GG) at position rs2230199 were genotyped with HRM using either, a high resolution melting master (Roche), b qPCRBIO HRM Mix(PCR Biosystems), c SensiFast HRM Kit (Bioline), or d MeltDoctor HRM Master Mix (Applied Biosystems by Life Technologies). Genotypes were correctly classified with Roche and ABI HRM mixes

Discussion

Real time PCR technology has been widely accepted because of its high specificity, sensitivity and reproducibility. Selection of appropriate kits is relevant for obtaining reliable results. Here we presented the performance of various SYBR green PCR mixes and HRM mixes. We wanted to test the robustness of different commercial SYBR green PCR mixes with respect to specificity and sensitivity of the PCR assay.

Sieber and colleagues have shown substantial performance discrepancies among commercial cDNA synthesis kits and qPCR kits in three species (mouse, rat, human) [20]; the current study mainly focused on the RT-qPCR process, thereby including specificity of the PCR assays as an essential outcome parameter. Melting curve analysis following PCR amplification can identify the presence of nonspecific amplicons [8, 18]. For a subset of primer pairs the melting profile exhibited differences between PCR kits when using one distinct PCR program. However, the poor melting profile markedly improved once the prescribed protocol were strictly followed. This improved amplification may result from the increased extension temperature of the Roche PCR program. Overall, 66 out of 70 transcripts showed a single smooth sharp peak by all commercial PCR kits (Table 3). The transcript targeting CCL4 demonstrated two melting peaks by Roche mix and the PCR products showed two bands in the gel plot. The primer pairs of IL-8 and IL-4 exhibited negative amplification and absence of PCR products by ABI mix. This discrepancy between transcripts may result from differences in magnesium chloride concentrations between PCR mixes.

When measuring the mRNA expression levels, the PCR amplification efficiency is particularly important [21]. The primer sets (GAPDH, TLR2, CD1c, CD54, CD68, CCL4, IL8 and IL4) used for Cq comparison among mixes displayed an acceptable amplification efficiency (Table 3). Two transcripts (CD54, CD68) showed lower Cq values by ABI mix compared to the other mixes on both machines, with even larger disparity on the ViiA7. Interestingly, the CCL4 or IL8 exhibited smaller Cq values by Bio Rad mix than ABI mix or Roche mix, respectively. The inconsistencies in amplification efficiency, especially in categories 2–4, may be due to differences between reagents such as salt concentration and acidity of the solution. Lu showed differences for four genes between ABI and Roche (LC480) PCR systems and also critical effects of magnesium concentration [22]. In the current study, we also showed that the ΔCq values between Roche and Bio Rad mix were slightly smaller on the LC96 than on the ViiA7, and similarly, ΔCq values for ABI and Bio Rad mixes were lower on the ViiA7. Therefore, the PCR kit and equipment from the same company are compatible with each other.

DNA chimerism analysis is a useful means to monitor the patient after transplantation, and the PCR assays used for this require high specificity [17, 23]. We found that different SYBR green mixes had a different capacity to distinguish positive and negative DNA samples. Although the mean ΔCq between positive and negative DNA samples were not significantly different between PCR mixes, the variation in ΔCq between assays with the ABI mix was smaller than with the Roche and Bio-Rad mixes. This was seen on two different PCR machines. Therefore, we conclude that the ABI PCR mix gives the highest consistency among 20 primer-selective SNP assays on DNA samples.

HRM is a powerful and flexible technique that can be used for genotyping and mutation scanning. The saturating dsDNA-binding dye is one of the important factors for successful HRM analysis. Both Roche and ABI mix could correctly identify the genotype of DNA samples under the identical PCR program conditions (Fig. 4). In contrast, the other two HRM mixes generated tangled and unsmooth melting curves, probably because of the quality of PCR amplicon. Our results showed that the source of HRM master mix is a major determinant of successful HRM analysis.

Conclusions

Our data show that three commercial PCR mixes exhibit significant differences with respect to sensitivity of the PCR assay when applying a large panel of primer sets for mRNA transcript quantitation. The consequences of the current findings are that the use of ABI mix has a preference because of higher robustness: this mix more often led to lower Cq values and a specific PCR reaction, also in case of deviating PCR protocols, compared to other mixes. With primer-selective amplification of genotype variants in genomic DNA samples, ABI PCR mix led to lower background level for negative samples and smaller variation among different assays between positive and negative genomic DNA samples. Overall, the source of the PCR mix had a greater influence on the results than the PCR device used. Finally, with HRM analysis of genomic DNA samples, PCR mixes from Roche and ABI produced the most distinctive melting profiles for correct genotype classification. The present results show that the type of master mix used in nucleic acid amplification reactions determines specificity of the assay and PCR yields.

Abbreviations

HRM: 

high resolution melting

SNP: 

single nucleotide polymorphism

PCR: 

polymerase chain reaction

qPCR: 

quantitative PCR

DNA: 

deoxyribonucleic acid

Ds DNA: 

double-stranded DNA

cDNA: 

complementary DNA

gDNA: 

genomic DNA

ABI: 

applied biosystems

LC 96: 

light cycler 96

NTC: 

no template control

−RT control: 

minus reverse transcriptase control

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

JY, ME and FC designed the experiments. JY, BK, MS and JA performed the laboratory experiments. JY, FC and ME analysed and/or interpreted the data, and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

J. Yang was awarded financial support from the China Scholarship Council (201306170038).

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center

References

  1. Schmittgen TD, Livak KJ. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ginzinger DG. Gene quantification using real-time quantitative PCR: an emerging technology hits the mainstream. Exp Hematol. 2002;30(6):503–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Arikawa E, Sun Y, Wang J, Zhou Q, Ning B, Dial SL, Guo L, Yang J. Cross-platform comparison of SYBR® Green real-time PCR with TaqMan PCR, microarrays and other gene expression measurement technologies evaluated in the microarray quality control (MAQC) study. BMC Genomics. 2008;9(1):328.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Dragan A, Pavlovic R, McGivney J, Casas-Finet J, Bishop E, Strouse R, Schenerman M, Geddes C. SYBR Green I: fluorescence properties and interaction with DNA. J Fluoresc. 2012;22(4):1189–99.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wittwer CT, Herrmann MG, Moss AA, Rasmussen RP. Continuous fluorescence monitoring of rapid cycle DNA amplification. Biotechniques. 1997;22(1):130–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wong ML, Medrano JF. Real-time PCR for mRNA quantitation. Biotechniques. 2005;39(1):75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ponchel F, Toomes C, Bransfield K, Leong FT, Douglas SH, Field SL, Bell SM, Combaret V, Puisieux A, Mighell AJ. Real-time PCR based on SYBR-Green I fluorescence: an alternative to the TaqMan assay for a relative quantification of gene rearrangements, gene amplifications and micro gene deletions. BMC Biotechnol. 2003;3(1):18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Ririe KM, Rasmussen RP, Wittwer CT. Product differentiation by analysis of DNA melting curves during the polymerase chain reaction. Anal Biochem. 1997;245(2):154–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Shu PY, Chang SF, Kuo YC, Yueh YY, Chien LJ, Sue CL, Lin TH, Huang JH. Development of group- and serotype-specific one-step SYBR Green I-based real-time reverse transcription-pcr assay for Dengue Virus. J Clin Microbiol. 2003;41(6):2408–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Yin JL, Shackel NA, Zekry A, McGuinness PH, Richards C, Van Der Putten K, McCaughan GW, Eris JM, Bishop GA. Real-time reverse transcriptase–polymerase chain reaction (RT–PCR) for measurement of cytokine and growth factor mRNA expression with fluorogenic probes or SYBR Green I. Immunol Cell Biol. 2001;79(3):213–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Taylor S, Scott R, Kurtz R, Fisher C, Patel V, Bizouam F. A practical guide to high resolution melt analysis genotyping. Bio-Rad Laboratories. Inc Bulletin 2010, Tech note 6004. 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Gundry CN, Vandersteen JG, Reed GH, Pryor RJ, Chen J, Wittwer CT. Amplicon melting analysis with labeled primers: a closed-tube method for differentiating homozygotes and heterozygotes. Clin Chem. 2003;49(3):396–406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Reed GH, Kent JO, Wittwer CT. High-resolution DNA melting analysis for simple and efficient molecular diagnostics. Pharmacogenomics. 2007;8(6):597–608.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Eikmans M, Rekers NV, Anholts JD, Heidt S, Claas FH. Blood cell mRNAs and microRNAs: optimized protocols for extraction and preservation. Blood. 2013;121(11):e81–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M, Rozen SG. Primer3—new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(15):e115.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Koressaar T, Remm M. Enhancements and modifications of primer design program Primer3. Bioinformatics. 2007;23(10):1289–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Alizadeh M, Bernard M, Danic B, Dauriac C, Birebent B, Lapart C, Lamy T, Le Prisé P-Y, Beauplet A, Bories D. Quantitative assessment of hematopoietic chimerism after bone marrow transplantation by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Blood. 2002;99(12):4618–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nolan T, Hands RE, Bustin SA. Quantification of mRNA using real-time RT-PCR. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(3):1559–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. D’haene B, Vandesompele J, Hellemans J. Accurate and objective copy number profiling using real-time quantitative PCR. Methods. 2010;50(4):262–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sieber MW, Recknagel P, Glaser F, Witte OW, Bauer M, Claus RA, Frahm C. Substantial performance discrepancies among commercially available kits for reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction: a systematic comparative investigator-driven approach. Anal Biochem. 2010;401(2):303–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, Mueller R, Nolan T, Pfaffl MW, Shipley GL. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):611–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu S, Smith AP, Moore D, Lee NM. Different real-time PCR systems yield different gene expression values. Mol Cell Probes. 2010;24(5):315–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bai L, Deng YM, Dodds AJ, Milliken S, Moore J, Ma DD. A SYBR green-based real-time PCR method for detection of haemopoietic chimerism in allogeneic haemopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Eur J Haematol. 2006;77(5):425–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016

Advertisement