Pitfalls of DNA quantification using dnabinding fluorescent dyes and suggested solutions

110Citations
Citations of this article
617Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The Qubit fluorometer is a DNA quantification device based on the fluorescence intensity of fluorescent dye binding to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). Qubit is generally considered useful for checking DNA quality before next-generation sequencing because it measures intact dsDNA. To examine the most accurate and suitablemethods for quantifying DNA for quality assessment, we compared three quantification methods: NanoDrop, which measures UV absorbance; Qubit; and quantitative PCR (qPCR), which measures the abundance of a target gene. For the comparison, we used three types of DNA: 1) DNA extracted from fresh frozen liver tissues (Frozen-DNA); 2) DNA extracted fromformalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver tissues comparable to those used for Frozen-DNA (FFPE-DNA); and 3) DNA extracted from the remaining fractions after RNA extraction with Trizol reagent (Trizol-DNA). These DNAs were serially diluted with distilled water and measured using three quantification methods. For Frozen- DNA, the Qubit values were not proportional to the dilution ratio, in contrast with the NanoDrop and qPCR values. This non-proportional decrease in Qubit values was dependent on a lower salt concentration, and over 1 mM NaCl in the DNA solution was required for the Qubitmeasurement. For FFPE-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were lower than the NanoDrop values. However, electrophoresis revealed that qPCR reflected the degree of DNA fragmentation more accurately than Qubit. Thus, qPCR is superior to Qubit for checking the quality of FFPE-DNA. For Trizol-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were consistently lower than the NanoDrop values, similar to FFPE-DNA. However, the qPCR values were higher than the NanoDrop values. Electrophoresis with SYBR Green I and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) quantification demonstrated that Trizol-DNA consistedmostly of non-fragmented ssDNA. Therefore, Qubit is not always the most accurate method for quantifying DNA available for PCR.

References Powered by Scopus

Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA

1436Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Noninvasive identification and monitoring of cancer mutations by targeted deep sequencing of plasma DNA

1066Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

DNA condensation by multivalent cations

1055Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Performance and application of 16S rRNA gene cycle sequencing for routine identification of bacteria in the clinical microbiology laboratory

196Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Improved normalization of species count data in ecology by scaling with ranked subsampling (SRS): Application to microbial communities

125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Measuring protein content in food: An overview of methods

104Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nakayama, Y., Yamaguchi, H., Einaga, N., & Esumi, M. (2016). Pitfalls of DNA quantification using dnabinding fluorescent dyes and suggested solutions. PLoS ONE, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150528

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 181

67%

Researcher 69

26%

Professor / Associate Prof. 14

5%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 136

47%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105

36%

Medicine and Dentistry 29

10%

Immunology and Microbiology 20

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free