1
|
Yuan H, Gao W, Yin J, Chen K, Mu Y, Jin Q, Jia C, Cong H, Yu J, Zhao J. Detection of EGFR gene with a droplet digital PCR chip integrating a double-layer glass reservoir. Anal Biochem 2022; 656:114877. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2022.114877] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2022] [Revised: 08/18/2022] [Accepted: 08/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
|
2
|
Tan LL, Loganathan N, Agarwalla S, Yang C, Yuan W, Zeng J, Wu R, Wang W, Duraiswamy S. Current commercial dPCR platforms: technology and market review. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2022; 43:433-464. [PMID: 35291902 DOI: 10.1080/07388551.2022.2037503] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
Digital polymerase chain reaction (dPCR) technology has provided a new technique for molecular diagnostics, with superior advantages, such as higher sensitivity, precision, and specificity over quantitative real-time PCRs (qPCR). Eight companies have offered commercial dPCR instruments: Fluidigm Corporation, Bio-Rad, RainDance Technologies, Life Technologies, Qiagen, JN MedSys Clarity, Optolane, and Stilla Technologies Naica. This paper discusses the working principle of each offered dPCR device and compares the associated: technical aspects, usability, costs, and current applications of each dPCR device. Lastly, up-and-coming dPCR technologies are also presented, as anticipation of how the dPCR device landscape may likely morph in the next few years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Ling Tan
- Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore, Singapore.,Materials Science and Engineering School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Nitin Loganathan
- Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Sushama Agarwalla
- Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
| | - Chun Yang
- Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Weiyong Yuan
- Faculty of Materials & Energy, Institute for Clean Energy and Advanced Materials, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.,Chongqing Key Laboratory for Advanced Materials and Technologies of Clean Energies, Chongqing, China
| | - Jasmine Zeng
- Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Ruige Wu
- Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wei Wang
- Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Suhanya Duraiswamy
- Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Giraldo PA, Shinozuka H, Spangenberg GC, Cogan NO, Smith KF. Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Feed: Is There Any Difference From Food? FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE 2019; 10:1592. [PMID: 31921242 PMCID: PMC6918800 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01592] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2019] [Accepted: 11/13/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Food security is one of major concerns for the growing global population. Modern agricultural biotechnologies, such as genetic modification, are a possible solution through enabling an increase of production, more efficient use of natural resources, and reduced environmental impacts. However, new crop varieties with altered genetic materials may be subjected to safety assessments to fulfil the regulatory requirements, prior to marketing. The aim of the assessment is to evaluate the impact of products from the new crop variety on human, animal, and the environmental health. Although, many studies on the risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) food have been published, little consideration to GM feedstuff has been given, despite that between 70 to 90% of all GM crops and their biomass are used as animal feed. In addition, in some GM plants such as forages that are only used for animal feeds, the assessment of the genetic modification may be of relevance only to livestock feeding. In this article, the regulatory framework of GM crops intended for animal feed is reviewed using the available information on GM food as the baseline. Although, the majority of techniques used for the safety assessment of GM food can be used in GM feed, many plant parts used for livestock feeding are inedible to humans. Therefore, the concentration of novel proteins in different plant tissues and level of exposure to GM feedstuff in the diet of target animals should be considered. A further development of specific methodologies for the assessment of GM crops intended for animal consumption is required, in order to provide a more accurate and standardized assessment to the GM feed safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula A. Giraldo
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Agriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Hiroshi Shinozuka
- Agriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - German C. Spangenberg
- Agriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Noel O.I. Cogan
- Agriculture Victoria Research, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, AgriBio, The Centre for AgriBiosciences, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| | - Kevin F. Smith
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
- Agriculture Victoria Research, Hamilton, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Wang X, Tang T, Miao Q, Xie S, Chen X, Tang J, Peng C, Xu X, Wei W, You Z, Xu J. Detection of transgenic rice line TT51-1 in processed foods using conventional PCR, real-time PCR, and droplet digital PCR. Food Control 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.11.032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
5
|
Giraldo PA, Cogan NOI, Spangenberg GC, Smith KF, Shinozuka H. Development and Application of Droplet Digital PCR Tools for the Detection of Transgenes in Pastures and Pasture-Based Products. FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE 2019; 9:1923. [PMID: 30671074 PMCID: PMC6331530 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01923] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/14/2018] [Accepted: 12/11/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Implementation of molecular biotechnology, such as transgenic technologies, in forage species can improve agricultural profitability through achievement of higher productivity, better use of resources such as soil nutrients, water, or light, and reduced environmental impact. Development of detection and quantification techniques for genetically modified plants are necessary to comply with traceability and labeling requirements prior to regulatory approval for release. Real-time PCR has been the standard method used for detection and quantification of genetically modified events, and droplet digital PCR is a recent alternative technology that offers a higher accuracy. Evaluation of both technologies was performed using a transgenic high-energy forage grass as a case study. Two methods for detection and quantification of the transgenic cassette, containing modified fructan biosynthesis genes, and a selectable marker gene, hygromycin B phosphotransferase used for transformation, were developed. Real-time PCR was assessed using two detection techniques, SYBR Green I and fluorescent probe-based methods. A range of different agricultural commodities were tested including fresh leaves, tillers, seeds, pollen, silage and hay, simulating a broad range of processed agricultural commodities that are relevant in the commercial use of genetically modified pastures. The real-time and droplet digital PCR methods were able to detect both exogenous constructs in all agricultural products. However, a higher sensitivity and repeatability in transgene detection was observed with the droplet digital PCR technology. Taking these results more broadly, it can be concluded that the droplet digital PCR technology provides the necessary resolution for quantitative analysis and detection, allowing absolute quantification of the target sequence at the required limits of detection across all jurisdictions globally. The information presented here provides guidance and resources for pasture-based biotechnology applications that are required to comply with traceability requirements.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paula A. Giraldo
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
| | - Noel O. I. Cogan
- Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
- School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
| | - German C. Spangenberg
- Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
- School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
- Agriculture Victoria, Hamilton, VIC, Australia
| | - Kevin F. Smith
- Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
- Agriculture Victoria, Hamilton, VIC, Australia
| | - Hiroshi Shinozuka
- Agriculture Victoria, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBioscience, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Demeke T, Dobnik D. Critical assessment of digital PCR for the detection and quantification of genetically modified organisms. Anal Bioanal Chem 2018; 410:4039-4050. [PMID: 29574561 PMCID: PMC6010488 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-018-1010-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2018] [Revised: 03/06/2018] [Accepted: 03/08/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
The number of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the market is steadily increasing. Because of regulation of cultivation and trade of GMOs in several countries, there is pressure for their accurate detection and quantification. Today, DNA-based approaches are more popular for this purpose than protein-based methods, and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) is still the gold standard in GMO analytics. However, digital PCR (dPCR) offers several advantages over qPCR, making this new technique appealing also for GMO analysis. This critical review focuses on the use of dPCR for the purpose of GMO quantification and addresses parameters which are important for achieving accurate and reliable results, such as the quality and purity of DNA and reaction optimization. Three critical factors are explored and discussed in more depth: correct classification of partitions as positive, correctly determined partition volume, and dilution factor. This review could serve as a guide for all laboratories implementing dPCR. Most of the parameters discussed are applicable to fields other than purely GMO testing. Graphical abstract There are generally three different options for absolute quantification of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) using digital PCR: droplet- or chamber-based and droplets in chambers. All have in common the distribution of reaction mixture into several partitions, which are all subjected to PCR and scored at the end-point as positive or negative. Based on these results GMO content can be calculated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tigst Demeke
- Canadian Grain Commission, Grain Research Laboratory, 1404-303 Main Street, Winnipeg, MB, R3C3G8, Canada
| | - David Dobnik
- Department of Biotechnology and Systems Biology, National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
| |
Collapse
|