Pitfalls of DNA Quantification Using DNA-Binding Fluorescent Dyes and Suggested Solutions

The Qubit fluorometer is a DNA quantification device based on the fluorescence intensity of fluorescent dye binding to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA). Qubit is generally considered useful for checking DNA quality before next-generation sequencing because it measures intact dsDNA. To examine the most accurate and suitable methods for quantifying DNA for quality assessment, we compared three quantification methods: NanoDrop, which measures UV absorbance; Qubit; and quantitative PCR (qPCR), which measures the abundance of a target gene. For the comparison, we used three types of DNA: 1) DNA extracted from fresh frozen liver tissues (Frozen-DNA); 2) DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver tissues comparable to those used for Frozen-DNA (FFPE-DNA); and 3) DNA extracted from the remaining fractions after RNA extraction with Trizol reagent (Trizol-DNA). These DNAs were serially diluted with distilled water and measured using three quantification methods. For Frozen-DNA, the Qubit values were not proportional to the dilution ratio, in contrast with the NanoDrop and qPCR values. This non-proportional decrease in Qubit values was dependent on a lower salt concentration, and over 1 mM NaCl in the DNA solution was required for the Qubit measurement. For FFPE-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were lower than the NanoDrop values. However, electrophoresis revealed that qPCR reflected the degree of DNA fragmentation more accurately than Qubit. Thus, qPCR is superior to Qubit for checking the quality of FFPE-DNA. For Trizol-DNA, the Qubit values were proportional to the dilution ratio and were consistently lower than the NanoDrop values, similar to FFPE-DNA. However, the qPCR values were higher than the NanoDrop values. Electrophoresis with SYBR Green I and single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) quantification demonstrated that Trizol-DNA consisted mostly of non-fragmented ssDNA. Therefore, Qubit is not always the most accurate method for quantifying DNA available for PCR.

[1]  N. Rosenfeld,et al.  Noninvasive Identification and Monitoring of Cancer Mutations by Targeted Deep Sequencing of Plasma DNA , 2012, Science Translational Medicine.

[2]  M. Holden,et al.  Comparison of fluorometric and spectrophotometric DNA quantification for real-time quantitative PCR of degraded DNA , 2009 .

[3]  Tomas Szemes,et al.  Fragmentation of DNA affects the accuracy of the DNA quantitation by the commonly used methods , 2013, Biological Procedures Online.

[4]  C. Georgiou,et al.  Assay for the quantification of intact/fragmented genomic DNA. , 2006, Analytical biochemistry.

[5]  R. Haugland,et al.  Characterization of PicoGreen reagent and development of a fluorescence-based solution assay for double-stranded DNA quantitation. , 1997, Analytical biochemistry.

[6]  A. Lyubartsev,et al.  Application of polyelectrolyte theories for analysis of DNA melting in the presence of Na+ and Mg2+ ions. , 1998, Biophysical journal.

[7]  I. Hösli,et al.  Determination of fetal chromosome aberrations from fetal DNA in maternal blood: has the challenge finally been met? , 2011, Expert Reviews in Molecular Medicine.

[8]  R. L. Baldwin,et al.  Cation-induced toroidal condensation of DNA studies with Co3+(NH3)6. , 1980, Journal of molecular biology.

[9]  A streamlined protocol for extracting RNA and genomic DNA from archived human blood and muscle. , 2015, Analytical biochemistry.

[10]  M. Holden,et al.  Factors affecting quantification of total DNA by UV spectroscopy and PicoGreen fluorescence. , 2009, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[11]  Rita T. Lawlor,et al.  DNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples , 2013, PloS one.

[12]  Keith Roberts,et al.  Molecular Cloning A Laboratory Manual Fourth Edition , 2015 .

[13]  Dieter Klein,et al.  Quantification using real-time PCR technology : applications and limitations , 2002 .

[14]  A. Sekizawa,et al.  From prenatal genomic diagnosis to fetal personalized medicine : progress and challenges , 2022 .

[15]  Kenny Q. Ye,et al.  Effective DNA/RNA Co-Extraction for Analysis of MicroRNAs, mRNAs, and Genomic DNA from Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Specimens , 2012, PloS one.

[16]  V. Bloomfield DNA condensation by multivalent cations. , 1997, Biopolymers.

[17]  N. Rosenfeld,et al.  Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA , 2013, Nature.

[18]  C. Cantor,et al.  Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis by single molecule counting technologies. , 2009, Trends in genetics : TIG.