A multicenter comparison of quantification methods for antisense oligonucleotide-induced DMD exon 51 skipping in Duchenne muscular dystrophy cell cultures

反义寡核苷酸诱导的杜氏肌营养不良症细胞培养中 DMD 外显子 51 跳跃的定量方法的多中心比较

阅读:7
作者:Monika Hiller, Maria Sofia Falzarano, Iker Garcia-Jimenez, Valentina Sardone, Ruurd C Verheul, Linda Popplewell, Karen Anthony, Estibaliz Ruiz-Del-Yerro, Hana Osman, Jelle J Goeman, Kamel Mamchaoui, George Dickson, Alessandra Ferlini, Francesco Muntoni, Annemieke Aartsma-Rus, Virginia Arechavala-Gom

Background

Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a lethal disease caused by lack of dystrophin. Skipping of exons adjacent to out-of-frame deletions has proven to restore dystrophin expression in Duchenne patients. Exon 51 has been the most studied target in both preclinical and clinical settings and the availability of standardized procedures to quantify exon skipping would be advantageous for the evaluation of preclinical and clinical data.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that digital droplet PCR was the most precise and quantitative method. The quantification of exon 51 skipping by Agilent bioanalyzer after a single round of PCR was the second-best choice with a 2.3-fold overestimation of exon 51 skipping levels compared to digital droplet PCR.

Methods

Six laboratories shared blinded RNA samples from Duchenne patient-derived muscle cells treated with different amounts of exon 51 targeting antisense oligonucleotide. Exon 51 skipping levels were quantified using five different techniques: digital droplet PCR, single PCR assessed with Agilent bioanalyzer, nested PCR with agarose gel image analysis by either ImageJ or GeneTools software and quantitative real-time PCR.

Objective

To compare

Results

Differences in mean exon skipping levels and dispersion around the mean were observed across the different techniques. Results obtained by digital droplet PCR were reproducible and showed the smallest dispersion. Exon skipping quantification with the other methods showed overestimation of exon skipping or high data variation. Conclusions: Our results suggest that digital droplet PCR was the most precise and quantitative method. The quantification of exon 51 skipping by Agilent bioanalyzer after a single round of PCR was the second-best choice with a 2.3-fold overestimation of exon 51 skipping levels compared to digital droplet PCR.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。