Amplification biases: possible differences among deviating gene expressions

BackgroundGene expression profiling has become a tool of choice to study pathological or developmental questions but in most cases the material is scarce and requires sample amplification. Two main procedures have been used: in vitro transcription (IVT) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the former known as linear and the latter as exponential. Previous reports identified enzymatic pitfalls in PCR and IVT protocols; however the possible differences between the sequences affected by these amplification defaults were only rarely explored.ResultsScreening a bovine cDNA array dedicated to embryonic stages with embryonic (n = 3) and somatic tissues (n = 2), we proceeded to moderate amplifications starting from 1 μg of total RNA (global PCR or IVT one round). Whatever the tissue, 16% of the probes were involved in deviating gene expressions due to amplification defaults. These distortions were likely due to the molecular features of the affected sequences (position within a gene, GC content, hairpin number) but also to the relative abundance of these transcripts within the tissues. These deviating genes mainly encoded housekeeping genes from physiological or cellular processes (70%) and constituted 2 subsets which did not overlap (molecular features, signal intensities, gene ID). However, the differential expressions identified between embryonic stages were both reliable (minor intersect with biased expressions) and relevant (biologically validated). In addition, the relative expression levels of those genes were biologically similar between amplified and unamplified samples.ConclusionConversely to the most recent reports which challenged the use of intense amplification procedures on minute amounts of RNA, we chose moderate PCR and IVT amplifications for our gene profiling study. Conclusively, it appeared that systematic biases arose even with moderate amplification procedures, independently of (i) the sample used: brain, ovary or embryos, (ii) the enzymatic properties initially inferred (exponential or linear) and (iii) the preliminary optimization of the protocols. Moreover the use of an in-house developed array, small-sized but well suited to the tissues we worked with, was of real interest for the search of differential expressions.

[1]  Neil Winegarden,et al.  Representation is faithfully preserved in global cDNA amplified exponentially from sub-picogram quantities of mRNA , 2002, Nature Biotechnology.

[2]  Fanyi Zeng,et al.  Transcript profiling during preimplantation mouse development. , 2004, Developmental biology.

[3]  J. MacLean,et al.  Family of Kunitz proteins from trophoblast: Expression of the trophoblast Kunitz domain proteins (TKDP) in cattle and sheep , 2003, Molecular reproduction and development.

[4]  L. Sheffield,et al.  Production and regulation of leptin in bovine mammary epithelial cells. , 2002, Domestic animal endocrinology.

[5]  R. Sederoff,et al.  Comparison of standard exponential and linear techniques to amplify small cDNA samples for microarrays , 2005, BMC Genomics.

[6]  J. Eberwine,et al.  Analysis of gene expression in single live neurons. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  J. Renard,et al.  Molecular evidence for a critical period in mural trophoblast development in bovine blastocysts. , 2005, Developmental biology.

[8]  W. Thilly,et al.  Specificity, efficiency, and fidelity of PCR. , 1993, PCR methods and applications.

[9]  S. W. Beam,et al.  Growth, development, and gene expression by in vivo‐ and in vitro‐produced day 7 and 16 bovine embryos , 2002, Molecular reproduction and development.

[10]  E. Brown,et al.  Quantitative analysis of mRNA amplification by in vitro transcription. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  C. Auffray,et al.  Reverse transcription in the presence of dideoxynucleotides to increase the sensitivity of expression monitoring with cDNA arrays. , 1999, BioTechniques.

[12]  P. Lichter,et al.  Effective transcriptome amplification for expression profiling on sense-oriented oligonucleotide microarrays , 2005, Nucleic acids research.

[13]  R. Roberts,et al.  Evolution of the interferon tau genes and their promoters, and maternal-trophoblast interactions in control of their expression. , 2019, Reproduction (Cambridge, England) Supplement.

[14]  S. Granjeaud,et al.  Differential gene expression in the murine thymus assayed by quantitative hybridization of arrayed cDNA clones. , 1995, Genomics.

[15]  R Herwig,et al.  Statistical evaluation of differential expression on cDNA nylon arrays with replicated experiments. , 2001, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  Chris T. A. Evelo,et al.  Biologically relevant effects of mRNA amplification on gene expression profiles , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[17]  Eivind Hovig,et al.  Options available for profiling small samples: a review of sample amplification technology when combined with microarray profiling , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[18]  R. Prather,et al.  Transcriptional Profiling of Pig Embryogenesis by Using a 15-K Member Unigene Set Specific for Pig Reproductive Tissues and Embryos1 , 2005, Biology of reproduction.

[19]  V. Duranthon,et al.  PCR-generated cDNA libraries from reduced numbers of mouse oocytes , 1995, Zygote.

[20]  D. Tesfaye,et al.  Transcript profiles of some developmentally important genes detected in bovine oocytes and in vitro-produced blastocysts using RNA amplification and cDNA microarrays. , 2006, Reproduction in domestic animals = Zuchthygiene.

[21]  P. Moll,et al.  Optimized RNA amplification using T7-RNA-polymerase based in vitro transcription. , 2004, Analytical biochemistry.

[22]  Lukasz Huminiecki,et al.  Congruence of tissue expression profiles from Gene Expression Atlas, SAGEmap and TissueInfo databases , 2003, BMC Genomics.

[23]  Gerard Brady,et al.  Errata , 1897, Current Biology.

[24]  A. Kaya,et al.  Dynamics of global transcriptome in bovine matured oocytes and preimplantation embryos , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  J. Maclouf,et al.  Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 1997 by The Endocrine Society Expression of Cyclooxygenase-1 and-2 in Ovine Endometrium During the Estrous Cycle and , 2022 .

[26]  V. Duranthon,et al.  Molecular Characterization of Genomic Activities at the Onset of Zygotic Transcription in Mammals1 , 2002, Biology of reproduction.

[27]  M. Jackson,et al.  Gene expression profiles of laser-captured adjacent neuronal subtypes , 1999, Nature Medicine.

[28]  J. Eberwine,et al.  Amplified RNA synthesized from limited quantities of heterogeneous cDNA. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Stéphane Robin,et al.  AnovArray: a set of SAS macros for the analysis of variance of gene expression data , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[30]  M. Severgnini,et al.  Transcriptome amplification methods in gene expression profiling , 2006, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[31]  X. Cui,et al.  Statistical tests for differential expression in cDNA microarray experiments , 2003, Genome Biology.

[32]  J. Eppig,et al.  Large-scale cDNA analysis reveals phased gene expression patterns during preimplantation mouse development. , 2000, Development.

[33]  R A Irizarry,et al.  On the utility of pooling biological samples in microarray experiments. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Shehua Shen,et al.  The unique transcriptome through day 3 of human preimplantation development. , 2004, Human molecular genetics.

[35]  C. V. Van Tassell,et al.  Serial analysis of gene expression during elongation of the peri-implantation porcine trophectoderm (conceptus). , 2005, Physiological genomics.

[36]  F. Marincola,et al.  High-fidelity mRNA amplification for gene profiling , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[37]  J. Renard,et al.  Gene expression in elongating and gastrulating embryos from ruminants. , 2007, Society of Reproduction and Fertility supplement.

[38]  Andrej-Nikolai Spiess,et al.  Amplified RNA degradation in T7-amplification methods results in biased microarray hybridizations , 2003, BMC Genomics.

[39]  P. Nilsson,et al.  Comparative analysis of a 3' end tag PCR and a linear RNA amplification approach for microarray analysis. , 2007, Journal of Biotechnology.

[40]  László G Puskás,et al.  RNA amplification results in reproducible microarray data with slight ratio bias. , 2002, BioTechniques.

[41]  Kazuki Kurimoto,et al.  An improved single-cell cDNA amplification method for efficient high-density oligonucleotide microarray analysis , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[42]  Liliána Z Fehér,et al.  Real-time polymerase chain reaction-based exponential sample amplification for microarray gene expression profiling. , 2005, Analytical biochemistry.

[43]  F. J. Livesey,et al.  Comparative evaluation of linear and exponential amplification techniques for expression profiling at the single-cell level , 2006, Genome Biology.