Comparison of Suitability of the Most Common Ancient DNA Quantification Methods

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14310%2F17%3A00098659" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14310/17:00098659 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2016.0197" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2016.0197</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/gtmb.2016.0197" target="_blank" >10.1089/gtmb.2016.0197</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparison of Suitability of the Most Common Ancient DNA Quantification Methods

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Aims: Ancient DNA (aDNA) extracted from historical bones is damaged and fragmented into short segments, present in low quantity, and usually copurified with microbial DNA. A wide range of DNA quantification methods are available. The aim of this study was to compare the five most common DNA quantification methods for aDNA. Materials and Methods: Quantification methods were tested on DNA extracted from skeletal material originating from an early medieval burial site. The tested methods included ultraviolet (UV) absorbance, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) based on SYBR® green detection, real-time qPCR based on a forensic kit, quantification via fluorescent dyes bonded to DNA, and fragmentary analysis. Differences between groups were tested using a paired t-test. Results: Methods that measure total DNA present in the sample (NanoDrop™ UV spectrophotometer and Qubit® fluorometer) showed the highest concentrations. Methods based on real-time qPCR underestimated the quantity of aDNA. The most accurate method of aDNA quantification was fragmentary analysis, which also allows DNA quantification of the desired length and is not affected by PCR inhibitors. Conclusions: Methods based on the quantification of the total amount of DNA in samples are unsuitable for ancient samples as they overestimate the amount of DNA presumably due to the presence of microbial DNA. Real-time qPCR methods give undervalued results due to DNA damage and the presence of PCR inhibitors. DNA quantification methods based on fragment analysis show not only the quantity of DNA but also fragment length.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparison of Suitability of the Most Common Ancient DNA Quantification Methods

Popis výsledku anglicky

Aims: Ancient DNA (aDNA) extracted from historical bones is damaged and fragmented into short segments, present in low quantity, and usually copurified with microbial DNA. A wide range of DNA quantification methods are available. The aim of this study was to compare the five most common DNA quantification methods for aDNA. Materials and Methods: Quantification methods were tested on DNA extracted from skeletal material originating from an early medieval burial site. The tested methods included ultraviolet (UV) absorbance, real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) based on SYBR® green detection, real-time qPCR based on a forensic kit, quantification via fluorescent dyes bonded to DNA, and fragmentary analysis. Differences between groups were tested using a paired t-test. Results: Methods that measure total DNA present in the sample (NanoDrop™ UV spectrophotometer and Qubit® fluorometer) showed the highest concentrations. Methods based on real-time qPCR underestimated the quantity of aDNA. The most accurate method of aDNA quantification was fragmentary analysis, which also allows DNA quantification of the desired length and is not affected by PCR inhibitors. Conclusions: Methods based on the quantification of the total amount of DNA in samples are unsuitable for ancient samples as they overestimate the amount of DNA presumably due to the presence of microbial DNA. Real-time qPCR methods give undervalued results due to DNA damage and the presence of PCR inhibitors. DNA quantification methods based on fragment analysis show not only the quantity of DNA but also fragment length.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10608 - Biochemistry and molecular biology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach<br>I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers

ISSN

1945-0265

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

21

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

7

Strana od-do

265-271

Kód UT WoS článku

000398434800011

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—