Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms

6Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Samples used in biomedical research are often collected over years, in some cases from subjects that may have died and thus cannot be retrieved in any way. The value of these samples is priceless. Sample misidentification or mix-up are unfortunately common problems in biomedical research and can eventually result in the publication of incorrect data. Here we have compared the Fluidigm SNPtrace and the Agena iPLEX Sample ID panels for the authentication of human genomic DNA samples. We have tested 14 pure samples and simulated their cross-contamination at different percentages (2%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50%). For both panels, we report call rate, allele intensity/probability score, performance in distinguishing pure samples and contaminated samples at different percentages, and sex typing. We show that both panels are reliable and efficient methods for sample authentication and we highlight their advantages and disadvantages. We believe that the data provided here is useful for sample authentication especially in biorepositories and core facility settings.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Manjunath, H. S., James, N., Mathew, R., Al Hashmi, M., Silcock, L., Biunno, I., … Tomei, S. (2021). Human sample  authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92978-3

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free