This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (
Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) is a powerful tool for quantifying specific DNA target sequences. Although determination of relative quantity is widely accepted as a reliable means of measuring differences between samples, there are advantages to being able to determine the absolute copy numbers of a given target. One approach to absolute quantification relies on construction of an accurate standard curve using appropriate external standards of known concentration. We have validated the use of tissue genomic DNA as a universal external standard to facilitate quantification of any target sequence contained in the genome of a given species, addressing several key technical issues regarding its use. This approach was applied to validate mRNA expression of gene candidates identified from microarray data and to determine gene copies in transgenic mice. A simple method that can assist achieving absolute quantification of gene expression would broadly enhance the uses of real-time qPCR and in particular, augment the evaluation of global gene expression studies.
The continued improvement of methodologies for examining gene expression is essential to further our understanding of how the information contained within a genome is utilized by the cellular machinery. The focus in recent years has been on the development of techniques that allow the analysis of the expression of a large number of genes simultaneously, with the goal being to profile the global expression under a particular set of conditions. Equally important though is the refinement of techniques to more accurately quantify the level of gene expression, with the goal being to determine the absolute copy number of an expressed sequence.
The most traditional method for characterizing mRNA transcripts is northern blot analysis. While this technique is effective for sizing mature mRNA transcripts and identifying alternatively spliced forms, quantification is always relative to a reference gene. RNase protection and S1 nuclease mapping assays are potentially more amenable to modifications that would allow determination of absolute quantity but they are not typically applied in this way. Furthermore, these techniques are not easily scaleable for assessing the expression of a large number of genes in many samples.
Approaches to global expression profiling include hybridization to various DNA microarray platforms and serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE). In practice, these methods rely on analysis of differential gene expression by measurement of fold changes over a suitable control or baseline. There has not been an extensive focus on using these global mRNA profiling techniques for determining absolute quantities of expressed genes nor has it been determined whether the current technologies are capable of measuring the concentration or absolute copy number of a given expressed gene sequence in an unknown sample with reasonable accuracy. Cross-platform validation and confirmation of ratiometric differences in mRNA expression for selected genes are often sufficient for the biological objectives of many studies. However, the lack of robust and scaleable methods of absolute gene copy quantification not only represents an obvious deficiency in a most fundamental aspect of scientific measurement, but also hinders the ability to study basic questions concerning the accuracy and sensitivity of current genome-scale mRNA profiling techniques.
Real-time PCR represents an innovative evolution of conventional PCR that has emerged as a major analytical platform in molecular biology. Incorporation of fluorescence-based detection systems into real-time PCR instruments not only allows kinetic detection of the accumulation of PCR products over the cycling period, but also provides greater sensitivity for amplicon detection as compared to conventional gel-based detection. Major uses of real-time PCR include analysis of differential mRNA expression (
In real-time PCR, the cycle at which the amount of detectable PCR product reaches a preset threshold level is assessed (
In this study, we present a simple method using standard curves generated from tissue genomic DNA (gDNA) that enable quantification of any naturally occurring gene sequence in cDNA samples. We have characterized parameters with which gDNA can be used effectively as a universal standard curve. This methodology was applied to validation of microarray data and genotyping of transgenic mice to demonstrate quantification of cDNA and gDNA, respectively.
Unless the copy numbers are specified, all green fluorescent protein (GFP) plasmid (4700 bp) standards were constructed with a 3-fold dilution series ranging from 8100 to 100 copies. The copy numbers of the GFP plasmid and PRKR plasmid (5547 bp) are calculated based on the following formula (
All primers were designed with Primer Express (PE Applied Biosystems, Perkin Elmer, Foster City, CA) based on target sequences obtained from the Affymetrix database (NetAffx™ Analysis Center,
RNA extraction was performed according to the manufacturer's manual for the RNeasy Kit (Qiagen). Both human and mouse gDNA from various tissues (human tonsil, liver, subcarinal lymph nodes and lung; mouse liver) was isolated according to the manufacturer's manual for the DNeasy Kit (Qiagen). Mouse-tail gDNA was isolated by phenol extraction after overnight proteinase K digestion, and then DNA is subsequently precipitated with ethanol and resuspended in 10 mM Tris, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.4. For the generation of external standards, gDNA was stored as a 9 ng/μl stock at −20°C, and a fresh 3-fold serial dilution was prepared for each real-time PCR experiment (9–0.111 ng/reaction).
DNase treatment was performed on RNA samples using DNA-free (Ambion Inc.) according to the manufacturer's manual in order to remove gDNA carry-over. In a single RT reaction, 5 μg of RNA was mixed with RNase-free water (Qiagen) and 1 μl of oligo(dT23) (Sigma–Aldrich Co.) to a final volume of 12 μl, then incubated at 90°C for 10 min. To this, 4 μl of 5× First-Strand buffer, 2 μl of 0.1 M DTT, 1 μl of 10 mM dNTP and 1 μl (200 U) of Superscript II (Invitrogen Co.) were added. The mixture was incubated at 42°C for 90 min followed by an extension period for 15 min at 70°C.
Real-time PCRs were performed using the ABI Prism 7900HT (PE Applied Biosystems) in 384 micro-well plates. All samples, including the external standards and non-template control, were run in triplicate. The reaction conditions had been established through a series of preliminary optimization experiments. Each 10 μl reaction contained 1× PCR buffer (Sigma–Aldrich Co.), 3 mM MgCl2, 0.2 mM dNTP, 1 nM forward and reverse primers, 1/50 dilution of ROX reference dye (Sigma–Aldrich Co.), 3/100 000 dilution of SYBR Green I (Sigma–Aldrich Co.), 0.05 U of JumpStart
Our VASRE system used a panel of six restriction enzymes (HpyCH4V, HaeIII, HinP1I, HpyCH4IV, MspI and RsaI, all from New England Biolabs) to validate the sequence specificity of the amplicons produced by real-time PCR primer pairs. The PCR products produced during real-time PCR screening of new primer pairs were digested with each enzyme in a separate reaction. Each VASRE reaction contained 0.5 U of restriction enzyme, 1× of appropriate digestion buffer, 0.8 μl of 25 mM MgCl2, 0.3 μl of SYBR Green I 1/1000 dilution (Sigma–Aldrich Co.), 0.1 μl of ROX reference dye (Sigma–Aldrich Co.) and 1 μl of cDNA template taken from a 9 ng gDNA standard originally screened in real-time PCR to a final volume of 10 μl, and then incubated at 37°C for 1 h. The reaction mixture was returned to a clean PCR plate, and a dissociation curve was produced by measuring the peak fluorescence change as the temperature was increased. The dissociation curve after digestion with each restriction enzyme was compared to the dissociation curve generated after incubation of the PCR product in the absence of enzyme.
RT reactions for microarray were carried out as described above, except that T7 oligo(dT) primer (Affymetrix, Inc.) was used instead of oligo(dT23) (Sigma–Aldrich Co.). Microarray hybridizations were performed using the Affymetrix HU133A chip (Affymetrix, Inc.) according to the user manual. The array data were analyzed with Microarray Suite ver. 5.0 (Affymetrix, Inc.).
Absolute quantification by real-time PCR requires amplification of the target sequence from a series of external standards of known quantities to generate a standard curve from which the quantity of the target sequence in the unknown sample can be calculated (
An essential consideration for using gDNA as an external standard in real-time PCR is designing target-specific primer pairs that do not span introns. Although it is common to design intron-spanning primer pairs to mitigate signals arising from contamination of RNA samples with gDNA, we routinely treat samples with DNase to avoid this non-specific amplification.
Primer pairs designed against a gene of interest were experimentally tested by generating a standard curve with tissue-derived gDNA. Acceptable primers meet the following criteria for efficiency and specificity.
Dissociation plots are generated at the end of the qPCR by slowly increasing the reaction temperature and measuring the rate of decrease in fluorescence as the strands of the final product separate. The dissociation plot should consist of a single peak to indicate a single product, and the peak of the curve should occur at the expected melting temperature of the amplicon. Specific amplification can be further verified by assessing the size of the PCR product by agarose gel electrophoresis. Verification of the Amplicon Specificity using Restriction Enzymes (VASRE). We have developed the VASRE assay to examine the dissociation curve after digestion of the PCR products with a panel of restriction enzymes. By identifying restriction sites in the expected amplification product, we can predict which digests will result in shifts in the dissociation peak. VASRE analysis of the products amplified from the genes
While gDNA has the advantage of acting as a source for any gene target, it also contains a large excess of non-target sequence. In contrast, plasmids or cDNA standards contain a relatively small amount of non-target sequence. We postulated that amplification efficiency may be affected by both the inherent properties of the primer pair and the complexity and nature of the DNA sample containing the target to be amplified. As gDNA is to be used as an external standard for the quantification of gene expression in cDNA, it is necessary to ensure that the differences in complexity do not confound these measurements.
Standard curves were generated by amplifying a dilution series of plasmid containing the gene for GFP by real-time PCR and plotting the
We extended this analysis by assessing GFP amplification in the presence of even higher concentrations of DNA ranging between 30.8 and 60 ng. GFP amplification was inhibited in the presence of higher gDNA concentrations (
Although the range of gDNA that we typically use in our standard curves does not impair amplification from GFP plasmid, we also wanted to ensure that amplification directly from the gDNA is not affected by the mechanical shearing that may result in loss of target sequences. To examine this, we generated standard curves using sheared or unsheared gDNA in the range of 9–0.111 ng with eight different primer pairs. Shearing the DNA affected neither the slope nor the correlation coefficient for any of the primer pairs tested (
Plasmid DNA is often used as an external standard for absolute quantification in real-time PCR. We compared amplification from ∼14.5 fg (∼2574 copies) of plasmid containing the human
HT gDNA was used to construct a standard curve from which the copy numbers of eight different target genes were determined in human gDNA from both subcarinal lymph node and lung. Each genomic sample was assessed at serial dilutions that covered the range of the standard curve. At each input level, the number of copies was not significantly different for each of the eight targets. Furthermore, the number of copies determined from each source was in agreement with each other at each dilution (Supplementary Figure B).
The three gDNA sources were compared by constructing standard curves from each and assessing gene expression in various cDNA samples. The number of copies of the
We have assessed copy numbers using five different primer pairs targeting different regions of the
This position-dependent effect is likely due to the efficiency of the reverse transcription reaction, which has long been appreciated, and it highlights the importance of designing primers near the 3′ end to help mitigate this effect. We examined this further by assessing the transcript copy number for eight different genes in CD4+ and CD8+ T cell cDNA using two sets of primer pairs designed against the 3′ region of each gene (
Quantitative real-time PCR is often used to validate the results obtained from microarray experiments (
Other applications that have relied upon real-time PCR are single nucleotide polymorphism detection and genotyping (
Quantitative real-time PCR is a well-proven and valuable tool for assessing gene expression. When determining the change in expression of a particular gene in response to a specific treatment or the difference in expression between two samples, amplification of an internal control or reference gene that is assumed to be constant between samples is generally used to normalize measurements. While assessment of changes in gene expression is often sufficient for most experimental purposes, the importance of determining the absolute copy number for an expressed sequence can be highlighted in cases where the degree of fold change may over- or under-signify the biological phenomena. For example, an increase from 10 to 100 copies (10-fold change) may carry less biological significance compared to an increase from 1000 to 5000 copies (5-fold change) even though in relative terms the former appears to have a greater induction. Furthermore, with relative quantification it is difficult to compare gene expression levels between studies that do not use the same baseline control, or where the baseline may not be constant. Determination of absolute copy numbers removes the need for a common baseline. This is particularly useful in pathogen load diagnosis (
Using real-time PCR to determine absolute copy number requires that a series of standards of known quantity be assessed in the same assay. The
Our results show that PCR efficiency is affected by the complexity of the material from which a target is amplified. This includes both the quantity as well as the composition of background DNA. Real-time PCR is inhibited at high background gDNA concentrations and/or in the presence of long strands of structurally complex DNA. While these inhibitory effects do not appear at the gDNA concentrations that are typically used to generate standard curves in our laboratory, it can affect quantification when using higher concentrations of gDNA standards or when assessing copy numbers in unknown gDNA samples. In such circumstances, the inhibitory effects can be overcome by moderate shearing of gDNA, which removes some of this complexity. We have additionally demonstrated that shearing of gDNA does not adversely affect the target amplification within the gDNA due to the potential loss of target sites.
gDNA can be extracted easily from a variety of sources, and it is expected that amplification of a target sequence with a given primer pair should be equally efficient regardless of this source. The standard curves constructed from the amplification of a target region in the
We have highlighted in this paper the importance of choosing an optimal target region to assess gene expression. Consistent quantification was observed between amplification from target regions that were located in similar regions of a gene. Generally, the assessed copy number determined from targets in the 5′ region of the gene was lower than that determined from targets in the 3′ region. This is likely due to inefficient reverse transcription reaction resulting in incomplete cDNA representation of the 5′ ends of the transcripts. Assessment of copy number was not affected by the primers' target location in gDNA. In general, when amplifying from cDNA, it is therefore preferable to target the 3′-UTR to minimize underestimation of the transcript copy number.
In our laboratory, real-time PCR is used to verify changes in gene expression observed with DNA microarrays. This is the first step to eliminate false positives prior to pursuing further analysis on the functional characterization of identified genes. We have shown in this paper that the real-time PCR using a gDNA standard is effective at verifying the differences in gene expression between two different human T cell types (CD4+ and CD8+). The need for a higher degree of accuracy for assessing global gene expression with high-throughput platforms is increasing, and the ability to determine absolute copy numbers with real-time PCR will play a crucial role in validating the design of these platforms and the algorithms used for their analysis. Real-time PCR is also a valuable tool for other applications beyond assessing gene expression such as assessment of copy number in transgenic mice. We have shown that a litter of mice could effectively be classified into null, heterozygous and homozygous groups for the gene in question.
The use of any external standard does not preclude the need for appropriate internal references, which monitor aspects of sample preparation such as RNA isolation and RT efficiency. While we believe that the relatively simple approach described in our study for quantification of gene targets in cDNA samples provides a richer form of data than relative quantification, there has not yet been methodologies described for achieving absolute quantification of transcript copies in live cells or tissues that have been robustly tested and universally accepted. Simultaneous quantification of an internal reference can be used to further adjust measured target quantities that are independent of the specific experimental procedure. An effective combination of both external standard and internal reference provides the best means by which to most accurately quantify gene expression. Furthermore, intra-assay variability has long been an issue for microarray studies, and is being addressed by development of a set of universal RNA reference materials (
In summary, there are many advantages to using gDNA as an external standard for quantitative real-time PCR. This includes the structural similarity of sheared gDNA to cDNA, the ability to use preparations of gDNA without excessive dilution, and the greater stability of these more concentrated solutions during long-term storage. Although there has been an effort to construct a DNA external standard containing multiple target sequences for several primer pairs (
We thank Drs Jeremy Mogridge for providing the GFP plasmid and Mingyao Liu for providing subcarinal lymph nodes gDNA. This work was supported by grants from CIHR and Genome Canada to S.D.D. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by Genome Canada and CIHR.
(
Verification of Amplicon Specificity using Restriction Enzymes (VASRE) on two real-time PCR amplicons. Expected digestion patterns are shown in the panels on the right. Dissociation curves after digestion with HpyCH4V and RsaI confirm the specificity of two amplicons when compared to expected results.
Effect of target position in assessment of
Assessment of gene transcript copy number using different real-time PCR targets. Expression level of eight genes was determined in CD4+ (open) and CD8+ (closed) T cells by amplification of two target sites in each gene. Absolute quantity was assessed in 1 ng of cDNA from each type of T cell. (
Validation of microarray data using real-time PCR with a gDNA standard. (
Genotyping of human-tau transgenic mice using mouse-tail gDNA as standard for real-time PCR. Null and homo indicate the expected ratio between absolute quantity of transgene and of internal reference gene in null (tau −/−) and homozygous (tau +/+) transgenic mice.
Effect of sample complexity on amplification efficiency: standard curves were constructed from a plasmid containing varying copies of the green fluorescent protein gene. The slope, R2 value and efficiency of standard curves are shown in the absence of background material and in the presence of increasing quantities of gDNA or CDNA
| BDC | Water | gDNA | cDNA | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.111 | 0.333 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 27 | |
| Slope | −3.82 | −3.39 | −3.26 | −3.20 | −3.56 | −3.31 | −3.43 | −3.48 | −3.57 | −3.36 |
|
|
0.993 | 0.993 | 0.989 | 0.994 | 0.997 | 0.992 | 0.995 | 0.995 | 0.995 | 0.993 |
| Efficiency | 83 | 97 | 103 | 105 | 91 | 101 | 96 | 94 | 91 | 98 |
BDC, background DNA concentration (ng/reaction).
Effect of sample complexity on amplification efficiency: GFP plasmid amplification in presence of varying concentrations of unsheared or sheared gDNA
| BDC | 0 | 30.8 | 38.6 | 48 | 60 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unsheared | Slope | −3.30 | −1.74 | −1.41 | −0.96 | −0.48 |
|
|
0.990 | 0.865 | 0.660 | 0.643 | 0.176 | |
| Efficiency | 101 | 275 | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| Sheared | Slope | −3.30 | −2.97 | −3.17 | −3.15 | −2.78 |
|
|
0.990 | 0.994 | 0.986 | 0.995 | 0.980 | |
| Efficiency | 101 | 117 | 107 | 108 | 129 |
N/A, not available due to poor correlation between replicates.
Effect of sample complexity on amplification efficiency: effect of shearing on amplification of eight target genes
| Gene Primer Pair | Slope |
|
Efficiency | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unsheared | Sheared | Unsheared | Sheared | Unsheared | Sheared | |
| HsIFNB1 | −3.36 | −3.26 | 0.978 | 0.984 | 99 | 102 |
| HsTLR3 | −3.28 | −3.31 | 0.985 | 0.979 | 102 | 101 |
| HsIRF7 | −2.83 | −3.06 | 0.925 | 0.967 | 125 | 112 |
| HsSCYA2 | −3.09 | −3.35 | 0.988 | 0.990 | 111 | 99 |
| HsPRKR P2 | −3.27 | −3.43 | 0.993 | 0.996 | 102 | 96 |
| HsOAS2 | −3.29 | −3.25 | 0.994 | 0.993 | 102 | 103 |
| HsIFIT1 | −3.36 | −3.36 | 0.918 | 0.982 | 98 | 99 |
| HsGAPD | −3.43 | −3.42 | 0.981 | 0.991 | 96 | 96 |
Amplification efficiency (%) = [10(−1/slope) − 1] × 100.