Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Research Notes

Open Access

A comparative study of digital PCR and real-time qPCR for the detection and quantification of HPV mRNA in sentinel lymph nodes of cervical cancer patients

  • Katrin Carow1,
  • Christina Read2,
  • Norman Häfner1,
  • Ingo B. Runnebaum1,
  • Adam Corner2 and
  • Matthias Dürst1Email author
BMC Research Notes201710:532

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2846-8

Received: 8 November 2016

Accepted: 23 October 2017

Published: 30 October 2017

Abstract

Background

Qualitative analyses showed that the presence of HPV mRNA in sentinel lymph nodes of cervical cancer patients with pN0 status is associated with significantly decreased recurrence free survival. To further address the clinical potential of the strategy and to define prognostic threshold levels it is necessary to use a quantitative assay. Here, we compare two methods of quantification: digital PCR and standard quantitative PCR.

Methods

Serial dilutions of 5 ng–5 pg RNA ( 500–0.5 cells) of the cervical cancer cell line SiHa were prepared in 5 µg RNA of the HPV-negative human keratinocyte cell line HaCaT. Clinical samples consisted of 10 sentinel lymph nodes with varying HPV transcript levels. Reverse transcription of total RNA (5 µg RNA each) was performed in 100 µl and cDNA aliquots were analyzed by qPCR and dPCR. Digital PCR was run in the RainDrop® Digital PCR system (RainDance Technologies) using a probe-based detection of HPV E6/E7 cDNA PCR products with 11 µl template. qPCR was done using a Rotor Gene Q 5plex HRM (Qiagen) amplifying HPV E6/E7 cDNA in a SYBR Green format with 1 µl template.

Results

For the analysis of both, clinical samples and serial dilution samples, dPCR and qPCR showed comparable sensitivity. With regard to reproducibility, both methods differed considerably, especially for low template samples. Here, we found with qPCR a mean variation coefficient of 126% whereas dPCR enabled a significantly lower mean variation coefficient of 40% (p = 0.01). Generally, we saw with dPCR a substantial reduction of subsampling errors, which most likely reflects the large cDNA amounts available for analysis.

Conclusions

Compared to real-time PCR, dPCR shows higher reliability. Thus, our HPV mRNA dPCR assay holds promise for the clinical evaluation of occult tumor cells in histologically tumor-free lymph nodes in future studies.

Keywords

HPV mRNAMolecular markerSentinel lymph nodeCervical cancerRecurrenceQuantitative PCRDigital PCR

Background

In patients with cervical cancer, metastatic spread to lymph nodes is known to be the most significant prognostic parameter. However, up to 15% of patients with no evidence of lymph node metastasis (pN0) develop recurrent disease [1, 2]. This may be due to occult metastatic spread of tumor cells. In a recent study we used human papillomavirus (HPV) mRNA as a highly specific molecular marker for disseminated tumor cells to predict the risk of recurrence. Indeed, in patients with cervical cancer and pN0-status (assessed by conventional histopathology; no ultra-staging and no immunohistochemistry) the presence of HPV mRNA in sentinel lymph nodes (SLN) was found to be of prognostic value independent of tumor size [3]. A weakness of that study was that HPV mRNA detection was based on a nested-PCR approach which is extremely sensitive but only allows a qualitative read out. For clinical implementation as well as for the definition of a prognostic threshold level for HPV mRNA, it is important to extend analyses with a quantitative assay. The current gold standard for quantification is quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) [4]. However, qPCR has limited applicability due to the high standard deviations typically observed with low template numbers. The analysis of larger amounts of cDNA to improve standard deviation is no alternative, since high amounts of non-template cDNA would inhibit the reaction. An alternative approach is digital PCR (dPCR) [5]. This technique allows a reduction of background per template molecule due to reaction partitioning into droplets and enables in this way the analysis of large cDNA amounts. Here, we compare both methods by detecting single template molecules within a large background of non-specific cDNA. Our aim was to determine which technique provides the most accurate, sensitive, and reproducible results for HPV mRNA quantification in SLN of cervical cancer patients.

Materials and methods

Samples and sample preparation

RNA was harvested from two cell lines: SiHa cells (HPV16 positive cervical carcinoma cell line; ATCC®, Catalog Number HTB-35™) and HaCaT cells (HPV-negative immortalized human keratinocyte cell line; CLS Cell lines service, Catalog Number 300493). A tenfold serial dilution of 5 ng–5 pg of RNA from SiHa cells ( 500–0.5 cells) was prepared in a background of 5 µg of HaCaT RNA. Additionally, RNA from SLN biopsies was isolated. Because of the explorative nature of this study which did not intend to test a pre-planned confirmatory hypothesis, a statistically justified sample size was not calculated. Instead, a small sample set was chosen which focused on preselected SLN biopsies. Of 10 samples, 7 samples were previously identified as having low HPV16 transcript levels (< 5 transcript equivalents/50 ng RNA). The remaining 3 samples had high transcript levels (> 100 transcript equivalents/50 ng RNA) [6]. Approximately 30 mg of tissue from each SLN were homogenized and total RNA was extracted using the RNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen, Catalog Number 52304). RNA concentration was determined by NanoDrop.

For cDNA synthesis of clinical samples as well as for the serial dilution series, 5 µg of total RNA were reverse transcribed in a 80 μl reaction comprising 40 pmol CDS-primer (5′-Tn= 30VN-3′), 40 pmol of each dNTP, first strand buffer, 5 mM DTT, 80 U RNaseOUT™ (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Catalog Number 10777019) and 400 U SuperScriptII (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Catalog Number 18064014). To allow optimal annealing, primer and RNA were incubated at 65 °C for 5 min and cooled down on ice. The remaining reagents were then added in form of a master mix and cDNA synthesis was done at 42 °C for 1 h. The reaction was stopped at 70 °C for 15 min, adjusted to 100 µl with aqua dest. and stored in aliquots at − 80 °C until PCR amplification. To rule out contamination we performed isolation and reverse transcription of HPV-negative samples in a non-HPV laboratory.

qPCR and dPCR

Both, qPCR and dPCR, were performed with assays designed to detect all HPV16 mRNA transcripts (cDNA) initiated at promoter p97 irrespective of splicing (Table 1).
Table 1

Oligonucleotides used for amplification with qPCR and dPCR

Oligonucleotide

Sequence (5′ → 3′)

HPV position

qPCR forward primer

AATGTTTCAGGACCCACAGG

103–122

qPCR reverse primer

CTCACGTCGCAGTAACTGTTG

206–226

dPCR forward primer

TTCGGTTGTGCGTACAAAGC

755–774

dPCR reverse Primer

AGTGTGCCCATTAACAGGTCTTC

799–821

dPCR TaqMan-MGB probe

CACGTAGACATTCGTACTT

778–796

qPCR was done using 1 µl cDNA in a Rotor Gene Q 5plex HRM (Qiagen) in triplicate runs each performed with triplicate reactions (9 × reactions in total). The 25 µl reaction consisted of 6 pmol of each dNTP, 10 pmol of forward and reverse primer, respectively, 5% DMSO, 1.75 mM MgCl2, 10 mM Tris–HCl pH 8.3, 50 mM KCl, 0.001% gelatine and AmpliTaqGold (1.25 U) (Applied Biosystems, Catalog Number N8080247). Cycling included a 10 min initial denaturation step at 95 °C, 45 cycles of 15 s denaturation (95 °C), 20 s annealing (58 °C) and 30 s elongation (72 °C) and 4 min final elongation step (72 °C). The melting temperature of the PCR product was determined to ensure specificity. A serial dilution of 1 pg–10−4 pg ( 100,000–10 copies) of plasmid-cloned HPV16 genome served as quantification standard. A further dilution step of the standard was excluded due to unreliable quantification results with only one plasmid copy per reaction. Four no template controls (NTC) were included in each qPCR run. Triplicate runs of dPCR were done on a RainDrop Digital PCR System (RainDance Technologies) with single replicates of 11 µl cDNA. dPCR was performed in a 50 µl reaction with Genotyping Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Catalog Number 4371355), 45 pmol of forward and reverse primer, respectively, and 10 pmol of TaqMan probe (Table 1). Cycling included 10 min initial denaturation (95 °C), 45 cycles of 15 s denaturation (95 °C) and 60 s annealing (61 °C) followed by 10 min at 98 °C and finally 10 min at 12 °C. Each run contained 2 NTCs. Only validated reagents were used throughout the study; PCR primers and probes were synthesized by Eurofins Genomics.

Standard deviation and detection limits were calculated and compared for both methods. Calculations on statistical significance were performed with two-tailed t test after ensuring standard normal distribution by Kolmogorov–Smirnov test.

Results

We tested two methods for quantification of HPV16 mRNA in SLN of cervical cancer patients: our standard qPCR and a newly established dPCR approach. Both techniques showed comparable results for clinical samples as well as a serial dilution series of RNA from a HPV16 positive cell line (SiHa) in RNA from a HPV negative cell line (HaCaT) (Fig. 1a; see Additional file 1: Raw data).
Fig. 1

Comparision of qPCR and dPCR. a Results of HPV transcript quantification by both methods. Calculated transcript equivalents per µl template (y-axis) are shown for 10 sentinel lymph nodes, a dilution series of SiHa cells and 3 HPV-negative control cell lines (x-axis). Standard deviations are indicated by error bars. b Detection reliability of the above samples by calculation of coefficients of variations. The coefficients of variation are considerably lower in dPCR analyses. This benefit is especially obvious in samples with a low number of templates

Detection reliability was evaluated by calculation of coefficients of variation from standard deviations. Both methods displayed equal analytical sensitivity and reproducibility, which were determined by assessing the respective parameter with regard to “copies per reaction”: in dPCR, 11 µl of the 5 pg SiHa sample contained transcript equivalents of 0.55 target cells per reaction and resulted in 100% positive replicates with a CV of 50%. The comparable qPCR pendant is 1 µl of the 50 pg SiHa step with 0.5 target cells per reaction. This was likewise detected with 100% positive replicates and a CV of 53% (Fig. 1b).

The study was designed to examine the suitability of each method for analyzing low template samples. Consequently we next focused on a sample specific perspective rather than on an analytical mode of interpretation. The highest dilution step comprising 5 pg SiHa RNA in a 100 µl cDNA synthesis reaction (0.005 target cell equivalents per microliter) was detected by both techniques. dPCR analyses resulted in 3/3 positive replicates with approximately 0.55 pg template (11 µl template  0.055 target cells) per reaction. Not surprisingly, the qPCR analyses were limited by stochastic effects resulting from the low input volume (1 µl) and achieved 1/9 positive replicates with approximately 0.05 pg template ( 0.005 cells) per reaction. This effect is even more evident by calculating variation coefficients: throughout the dilution series we obtained CVs between 3.5 and 49% when using dPCR, whereas qPCR resulted in CVs between 24 and 282%. In high template clinical samples, dPCR yielded a mean CV of 6%. In comparison, qPCR yielded a mean CV of 13%. This difference is not significant. In contrast, by analyzing low template samples we found a significant difference with a mean CV of 40% for dPCR and a mean CV of 126% for qPCR (p = 0.01).

Of note is that the results of low template samples are challenged by the presence of unspecific signals in both techniques. For dPCR, these are related to a background signal (1 copy per 55,000 cells) which is evident in the HaCaT only dilution step, in all 3 control cell lines (Cov434, KGN and HTR8) comprising HPV negative cDNA and in one of six NTCs. In qPCR a contamination was observed in one of nine reactions for the KGN control whereas all other controls remained negative.

Discussion

In this comparative study, we examined the suitability of dPCR and qPCR for quantifying HPV mRNA in SLN of cervical cancer patients. The performance of both techniques was assessed by analyzing RNA from SLN biopsies and a serial dilution of RNA derived from HPV16 positive SiHa cells in a background of HPV negative HaCaT RNA. To test the applicability over a broad dynamic range and with challenging specimens, samples were selected to display low as well as high target abundance.

Overall absolute sensitivity was similar but dPCR showed a superior performance with regard to reproducibility. These results are in concordance with observations made elsewhere [7, 8] and are particularly relevant for samples with low target concentration. The improvement is related to larger input volumes in dPCR. To use higher amounts of template for qPCR in order to compensate for the larger volume used for dPCR is no alternative since our analyte already had a high concentration (50 ng RNA per µl in cDNA synthesis). Higher amounts of nucleic acids would simply hamper qPCR. In contrast, dPCR enables a partitioning of the background leading to a reduction of the inhibiting effect of excess cDNA as well as to a reduction of the background per template molecule. The latter is considered as one main advantage of dPCR [9].

Digital PCR has been used for viral nucleic acid quantification in numerous studies [7, 1012]. However, only Biron and colleagues applied the technique for HPV detection and demonstrated the proof-of-principle of the strategy by HPV16 E6 E7 RNA quantification in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma [12]. The study lacks the direct comparison of qPCR and dPCR, which we provide here in the context of cervical carcinoma.

Both techniques are challenged by the presence of false positive controls. The occurrence of false positive droplets is a well-known phenomenon of dPCR [7, 13]. Of note is that we never observed more one false positive droplet per reaction. This would be indicative of one HPV template per 55,000 cells. We can exclude sample contamination because all HPV-negative samples were processed (cell culturing, RNA extraction and cDNA synthesis) in a non-HPV laboratory. Further optimization of the TaqMan probe might solve this problem. For qPCR only one of 60 control reactions (comprising HPV negative cell lines and NTC) was false positive demonstrating that despite all precautions occasional low copy contamination is not always avoidable. Clearly, this needs to be considered in future studies when defining a clinically relevant threshold for predicting recurrence.

Conclusion

The sensitivity and simplicity of qPCR is undisputable. However, dPCR showed a superior performance with regard to template input amounts and reproducibility. Together these points indicate a high potential for dPCR for the evaluation of the clinical relevance of occult tumour cells in histologically tumour-free lymph nodes of cervical cancer patients in future studies.

Abbreviations

Ct: 

cycle threshold

CV: 

coefficient of variation

dPCR: 

digital PCR

HPV: 

human papilloma virus

NTC: 

no template control

SCC: 

squamous cell carcinoma

SLN: 

sentinel lymph node

qPCR: 

quantitative PCR

pN0: 

no lymph node metastasis by histopathology

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

KC and MD conceived and designed the study. KC, MD and IBR provided all samples. KC and CR performed the experiments. KC, CR, NH, IBR, ASC and MD analyzed and interpreted the data. KC, ASC and MD drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Achim Schneider, MVZ im Fürstenberg-Karree, Berlin for his seminal work regarding the sentinel concept for cervical cancer patients.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. CR and AC are employees of RainDance technologies.

Availability of data and materials

Raw data of all PCR runs are given in Additional file 1. Further information is available from the authors on request.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional review committee of the Jena University Hospital (0175-02/00). Written consent was provided by all patients.

Funding

This work was supported by intramural research funds (LOM) provided by Jena University Hospital.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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)
Klinik und Poliklinik für Frauenheilkunde und Fortpflanzungsmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Jena
(2)
RainDance Technologies

References

  1. Delgado G, Bundy BN, Fowler WC Jr, Stehman FB, Sevin B, Creasman WT, Major F, DiSaia P, Zaino R. A prospective surgical pathological study of stage I squamous carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Gynecol Oncol. 1989;35(3):314–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Look KY, Brunetto VL, Clarke-Pearson DL, Averette HE, Major FJ, Alvarez RD, Homesley HD, Zaino RJ. An analysis of cell type in patients with surgically staged stage IB carcinoma of the cervix: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1996;63(3):304–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Durst M, Hoyer H, Altgassen C, Greinke C, Hafner N, Fishta A, Gajda M, Mahnert U, Hillemanns P, Dimpfl T, et al. Prognostic value of HPV-mRNA in sentinel lymph nodes of cervical cancer patients with pN0-status. Oncotarget. 2015;6(26):23015–25.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Wittwer CT, Herrmann MG, Moss AA, Rasmussen RP. Continuous fluorescence monitoring of rapid cycle DNA amplification. Biotechniques. 1997;22(1):130–1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Digital PCR. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96(16):9236–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hafner N, Gajda M, Altgassen C, Hertel H, Greinke C, Hillemanns P, Schneider A, Durst M. HPV16-E6 mRNA is superior to cytokeratin 19 mRNA as a molecular marker for the detection of disseminated tumour cells in sentinel lymph nodes of patients with cervical cancer by quantitative reverse-transcription PCR. Int J Cancer. 2007;120(9):1842–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Strain MC, Lada SM, Luong T, Rought SE, Gianella S, Terry VH, Spina CA, Woelk CH, Richman DD. Highly precise measurement of HIV DNA by droplet digital PCR. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e55943.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Hindson CM, Chevillet JR, Briggs HA, Gallichotte EN, Ruf IK, Hindson BJ, Vessella RL, Tewari M. Absolute quantification by droplet digital PCR versus analog real-time PCR. Nat Methods. 2013;10(10):1003–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Taly V, Pekin D, El Abed A, Laurent-Puig P. Detecting biomarkers with microdroplet technology. Trends Mol Med. 2012;18(7):405–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sedlak RH, Cook L, Cheng A, Magaret A, Jerome KR. Clinical utility of droplet digital PCR for human cytomegalovirus. J Clin Microbiol. 2014;52(8):2844–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Leibovitch EC, Brunetto GS, Caruso B, Fenton K, Ohayon J, Reich DS, Jacobson S. Coinfection of human herpesviruses 6A (HHV-6A) and HHV-6B as demonstrated by novel digital droplet PCR assay. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e92328.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Biron VL, Kostiuk M, Isaac A, Puttagunta L, O’Connell DA, Harris J, Cote DW, Seikaly H. Detection of human papillomavirus type 16 in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Cancer. 2016;122(10):1544–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kiselinova M, Pasternak AO, De Spiegelaere W, Vogelaers D, Berkhout B, Vandekerckhove L. Comparison of droplet digital PCR and seminested real-time PCR for quantification of cell-associated HIV-1 RNA. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e85999.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017

Advertisement