Droplet volume variability as a critical factor for accuracy of absolute quantification using droplet digital PCR

Accurate and precise nucleic-acid quantification is crucial for clinical and diagnostic decisions, as overestimation or underestimation can lead to misguided treatment of a disease or incorrect labelling of the products. Digital PCR is one of the best tools for absolute nucleic-acid copy-number determination. However, digital PCR needs to be well characterised in terms of accuracy and sources of uncertainty. With droplet digital PCR, discrepancies between the droplet volume assigned by the manufacturer and measured by independent laboratories have already been shown in previous studies. In the present study, we report on the results of an inter-laboratory comparison of different methods for droplet volume determination that is based on optical microscopy imaging and is traceable to the International System of Units. This comparison was conducted on the same DNA material, with the examination of the influence of parameters such as droplet generators, supermixes, operators, inter-cartridge and intra-cartridge variability, and droplet measuring protocol. The mean droplet volume was measured using a QX200™ AutoDG™ Droplet Digital™ PCR system and two QX100™ Droplet Digital™ PCR systems. The data show significant volume differences between these two systems, as well as significant differences in volume when different supermixes are used. We also show that both of these droplet generator systems produce droplets with significantly lower droplet volumes (13.1%, 15.9%, respectively) than stated by the manufacturer and previously measured by other laboratories. This indicates that to ensure precise quantification, the droplet volumes should be assessed for each system.

[1]  Savini Cristian,et al.  Definition of Minimum Performance Requirements for Analytical Methods of GMO Testing European Network of GMO Laboratories (ENGL) , 2008 .

[2]  Mojca Milavec,et al.  Digital PCR for direct quantification of viruses without DNA extraction , 2015, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[3]  Robert D. Boyd,et al.  Traceable size determination of nanoparticles, a comparison among European metrology institutes , 2012 .

[4]  Mojca Milavec,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Food and Feed Samples with Droplet Digital PCR , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  S H Neoh,et al.  Quantitation of targets for PCR by use of limiting dilution. , 1992, BioTechniques.

[6]  H. Zeichhardt,et al.  Standardization of Nucleic Acid Tests for Clinical Measurements of Bacteria and Viruses , 2014, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[7]  Kevin W Eliceiri,et al.  NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[8]  Jim F Huggett,et al.  Considerations for digital PCR as an accurate molecular diagnostic tool. , 2015, Clinical chemistry.

[9]  Benjamin J. Hindson,et al.  Evaluation of a Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction Format for DNA Copy Number Quantification , 2011, Analytical chemistry.

[10]  Kristina Gruden,et al.  The GMOseek matrix: a decision support tool for optimizing the detection of genetically modified plants , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  Roger E Bumgarner,et al.  Digital detection of endonuclease mediated gene disruption in the HIV provirus , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[12]  I. Hudecova,et al.  Digital PCR analysis of circulating nucleic acids. , 2015, Clinical biochemistry.

[13]  J. Kramar,et al.  Method for Measuring the Volume of Nominally 100 um Diameter Spherical Water-in-Oil Emulsion Droplets , 2016 .

[14]  Christina Backes,et al.  An integer linear programming approach for finding deregulated subgraphs in regulatory networks , 2011, Nucleic acids research.

[15]  E. Iso,et al.  Measurement Uncertainty and Probability: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement , 1995 .

[16]  Johannes E. Schindelin,et al.  The ImageJ ecosystem: An open platform for biomedical image analysis , 2015, Molecular reproduction and development.

[17]  Arne Holst-Jensen,et al.  Multiplex quantification of 12 European Union authorized genetically modified maize lines with droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. , 2015, Analytical chemistry.

[18]  K. Gruden,et al.  Optimising droplet digital PCR analysis approaches for detection and quantification of bacteria: a case study of fire blight and potato brown rot , 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[19]  Corbisier Philippe,et al.  Training manual on GMO quantification: Proper calibration and estimation of measurement uncertainty , 2014 .

[20]  Johannes E. Schindelin,et al.  Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis , 2012, Nature Methods.

[21]  K. Kinzler,et al.  Digital PCR. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  Erica L. Romsos,et al.  Evaluating Digital PCR for the Quantification of Human Genomic DNA: Accessible Amplifiable Targets. , 2016, Analytical chemistry.

[23]  David L Duewer,et al.  Evaluating Droplet Digital Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Quantification of Human Genomic DNA: Lifting the Traceability Fog. , 2017, Analytical chemistry.

[24]  Alexandra S. Whale,et al.  Comparison of microfluidic digital PCR and conventional quantitative PCR for measuring copy number variation , 2012, Nucleic acids research.

[25]  Dany Morisset,et al.  Multiplex quantification of four DNA targets in one reaction with Bio-Rad droplet digital PCR system for GMO detection , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[26]  Ramesh Ramakrishnan,et al.  Mathematical Analysis of Copy Number Variation in a DNA Sample Using Digital PCR on a Nanofluidic Device , 2008, PloS one.

[27]  Hendrik Emons,et al.  DNA copy number concentration measured by digital and droplet digital quantitative PCR using certified reference materials , 2015, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.