Jim F. Huggett

The MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments

BACKGROUND Currently, a lack of consensus exists on how best to perform and interpret quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) experiments. The problem is exacerbated by a lack of sufficient experimental detail in many publications, which impedes a readers ability to evaluate critically the quality of the results presented or to repeat the experiments. CONTENT The Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines target the reliability of results to help ensure the integrity of the scientific literature, promote consistency between laboratories, and increase experimental transparency. MIQE is a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating qPCR experiments. Included is a checklist to accompany the initial submission of a manuscript to the publisher. By providing all relevant experimental conditions and assay characteristics, reviewers can assess the validity of the protocols used. Full disclosure of all reagents, sequences, and analysis methods is necessary to enable other investigators to reproduce results. MIQE details should be published either in abbreviated form or as an online supplement. SUMMARY Following these guidelines will encourage better experimental practice, allowing more reliable and unequivocal interpretation of qPCR results.

Real-time RT-PCR normalisation; strategies and considerations

Real-time RT-PCR has become a common technique, no longer limited to specialist core facilities. It is in many cases the only method for measuring mRNA levels of vivo low copy number targets of interest for which alternative assays either do not exist or lack the required sensitivity. Benefits of this procedure over conventional methods for measuring RNA include its sensitivity, large dynamic range, the potential for high throughout as well as accurate quantification. To achieve this, however, appropriate normalisation strategies are required to control for experimental error introduced during the multistage process required to extract and process the RNA. There are many strategies that can be chosen; these include normalisation to sample size, total RNA and the popular practice of measuring an internal reference or housekeeping gene. However, these methods are frequently applied without appropriate validation. In this review we discuss the relative merits of different normalisation strategies and suggest a method of validation that will enable the measurement of biologically meaningful results.

Validation of housekeeping genes for normalizing RNA expression in real-time PCR.

Analysis of RNA expression using techniques like real-time PCR has traditionally used reference or housekeeping genes to control for error between samples. This practice is being questioned as it becomes increasingly clear that some housekeeping genes may vary considerably in certain biological samples. We used real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) to assess the levels of 13 housekeeping genes expressed in peripheral blood mononuclear cell culture and whole blood from healthy individuals and those with tuberculosis. Housekeeping genes were selected from conventionally used ones and from genes reported to be invariant in human T cell culture. None of the commonly used housekeeping genes [e.g., glyceraldehyde-phosphate-dehydrogenase (GAPDH)] were found to be suitable as internal references, as they were highly variable (>30-fold maximal variability). Furthermore, genes previously found to be invariant in human T cell culture also showed large variation in RNA expression (>34-fold maximal variability). Genes that were invariant in blood were highly variable in peripheral blood mononuclear cell culture. Our data show that RNA specifying human acidic ribosomal protein was the most suitable housekeeping gene for normalizing mRNA levels in human pulmonary tuberculosis. Validations of housekeeping genes are highly specific for a particular experimental model and are a crucial component in assessing any new model.

The Digital MIQE Guidelines: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments

There is growing interest in digital PCR (dPCR) because technological progress makes it a practical and increasingly affordable technology. dPCR allows the precise quantification of nucleic acids, facilitating the measurement of small percentage differences and quantification of rare variants. dPCR may also be more reproducible and less susceptible to inhibition than quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Consequently, dPCR has the potential to have a substantial impact on research as well as diagnostic applications. However, as with qPCR, the ability to perform robust meaningful experiments requires careful design and adequate controls. To assist independent evaluation of experimental data, comprehensive disclosure of all relevant experimental details is required. To facilitate this process we present the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments guidelines. This report addresses known requirements for dPCR that have already been identified during this early stage of its development and commercial implementation. Adoption of these guidelines by the scientific community will help to standardize experimental protocols, maximize efficient utilization of resources, and enhance the impact of this promising new technology.

Accurate and rapid identification of bacterial species from positive blood cultures with a DNA-based microarray platform: an observational study

BACKGROUND New DNA-based microarray platforms enable rapid detection and species identification of many pathogens, including bacteria. We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and turnaround time of a new molecular sepsis assay. METHODS 2107 positive blood-culture samples of 3318 blood samples from patients with clinically suspected sepsis were investigated for bacterial species by both conventional culture and Prove-it sepsis assay (Mobidiag, Helsinki, Finland) in two centres (UK and Finland). The assay is a novel PCR and microarray method that is based on amplification and detection of gyrB, parE, and mecA genes of 50 bacterial species. Operators of the test assay were not aware of culture results. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and turnaround time according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute recommendations. FINDINGS 1807 of 2107 (86%) positive blood-culture samples included a pathogen covered by the assay. The assay had a clinical sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 93.6-95.7) and a specificity of 98.8% (98.1-99.2), and 100% for both measures for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. The assay was a mean 18 h faster than was the conventional culture-based method, which takes an additional 1-2 working days. 34 of 3284 (1.0%) samples were excluded because of technical and operator errors. INTERPRETATION Definitive identification of bacterial species with this microarray platform was highly sensitive, specific, and faster than was the gold-standard culture-based method. This assay could enable fast and earlier evidence-based management for clinical sepsis.

Evaluation of digital PCR for absolute DNA quantification.

The emerging technique of microfluidic digital PCR (dPCR) offers a unique approach to real-time quantitative PCR for measuring nucleic acids that may be particularly suited for low-level detection. In this study, we evaluated the quantitative capabilities of dPCR when measuring small amounts (<200 copies) of DNA and investigated parameters influencing technical performance. We used various DNA templates, matrixes, and assays to evaluate the precision, sensitivity and reproducibility of dPCR, and demonstrate that this technique can be highly reproducible when performed at different times and when different primer sets are targeting the same molecule. dPCR exhibited good analytical sensitivity and was reproducible outside the range recommended by the instrument manufacturer; detecting 16 estimated targets with high precision. The inclusion of carrier had no effect on this estimated quantity, but did improve measurement precision. We report disagreement when using dPCR to measure different template types and when comparing the estimated quantities by dPCR and UV spectrophotometry. Finally, we also demonstrate that preamplification can impose a significant measurement bias. These findings provide an independent assessment of low copy molecular measurement using dPCR and underline important factors for consideration in dPCR experimental design.

Lung Remodeling in Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Tuberculosis is a global public health catastrophe responsible for >8 million cases of illness and 2 million deaths annually. Pulmonary cavitation with cough-generated aerosol is the principle means of spread, and lung remodeling (healed cavitation, fibrosis, and bronchiectasis) is a major cause of lung disability, surpassing all other diffuse parenchymal lung diseases combined. Efficient granuloma turnover is mycobactericidal, and extracellular matrix is disbanded without scarring. In many with progressive disease, however, there is dysregulated granuloma turnover, liquefactive necrosis, and pathological scarring. The pathological mechanisms and the related immunological pathways underpinning these phenomena are reviewed in the present article. Further studies are needed to identify and develop specific immunotherapeutic interventions that target immunopathology, since they have the potential to substantially reduce spread.

Considerations for Digital PCR as an Accurate Molecular Diagnostic Tool

BACKGROUND Digital PCR (dPCR) is an increasingly popular manifestation of PCR that offers a number of unique advantages when applied to preclinical research, particularly when used to detect rare mutations and in the precise quantification of nucleic acids. As is common with many new research methods, the application of dPCR to potential clinical scenarios is also being increasingly described. CONTENT This review addresses some of the factors that need to be considered in the application of dPCR. Compared to real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR), dPCR clearly has the potential to offer more sensitive and considerably more reproducible clinical methods that could lend themselves to diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive tests. But for this to be realized the technology will need to be further developed to reduce cost and simplify application. Concomitantly the preclinical research will need be reported with a comprehensive understanding of the associated errors. dPCR benefits from a far more predictable variance than qPCR but is as susceptible to upstream errors associated with factors like sampling and extraction. dPCR can also suffer systematic bias, particularly leading to underestimation, and internal positive controls are likely to be as important for dPCR as they are for qPCR, especially when reporting the absence of a sequence. SUMMARY In this review we highlight some of the considerations that may be needed when applying dPCR and discuss sources of error. The factors discussed here aim to assist in the translation of dPCR to diagnostic, predictive, or prognostic applications.

The need for transparency and good practices in the qPCR literature

Two surveys of over 1,700 publications whose authors use quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) reveal a lack of transparent and comprehensive reporting of essential technical information. Reporting standards are significantly improved in publications that cite the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE) guidelines, although such publications are still vastly outnumbered by those that do not.

Differential susceptibility of PCR reactions to inhibitors: an important and unrecognised phenomenon

BackgroundPCR inhibition by nucleic acid extracts is a well known yet poorly described phenomenon. Inhibition assessment generally depends on the assumption that inhibitors affect all PCR reactions to the same extent; i.e. that the reaction of interest and the control reaction are equally susceptible to inhibition. To test this assumption we performed inhibition assessment on DNA extracts from human urine samples, fresh urine and EDTA using different PCR reactions.ResultsWhen copurified inhibitors were assessed using two different PCR reactions one reaction appeared to be inhibited whilst the other was not. Further experiments using various concentrations of unextracted urine to inhibit six different PCR reactions revealed that susceptibility to inhibition was highly variable between reactions. Similar results were obtained using EDTA as the PCR inhibitor. We could find no obvious explanation why one reaction should be more susceptible to inhibition than another, although a possible association with amplicon GC content was noted.ConclusionThese findings have serious implications for all PCR-based gene expression studies, including the relatively new PCR array method, and for both qualitative and quantitative PCR-based molecular diagnostic assays, suggesting that careful consideration should be given to inhibition compatibility when conducting PCR analyses. We have demonstrated unequivocally that it is not safe to assume that different PCR reactions are equally susceptible to inhibition by substances co-purified in nucleic acid extracts.