Cited by 135

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Detection and Quantification of Heteroplasmic Mutant Mitochondrial DNA by Real-Time Amplification Refractory Mutation System Quantitative PCR Analysis: A Single-Step Approach

Bai, Ren-Kui, Wong, Lee-Jun C·2004·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: The A3243G mitochondrial tRNA leu(UUR) point mutation causes mitochondrial myopathy, encephalopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes (MELAS) syndrome, the most common mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) disorder, and is also found in patients with maternally inherited diabetes and deafness syndrome (MIDD). To correlate disease manifestation with mutation loads, it is necessary to measure the percentage of the A3243G mtDNA mutation. Methods: To reliably quantify low proportions of the mutant mtDNA, we developed a real-time amplification refractory mutation system quantitative PCR (ARMS-qPCR) assay. We validated the method with experimental samples containing known proportions of mutant A3243G mtDNA generated by mixing known amounts of cloned plasmid DNA containing either the wild-type or the mutant sequences. Results: A correlation coefficient of 0.9995 between the expected and observed values for the proportions of mutant A3243G in the experimental samples was found. Evaluation of a total of 36 patient DNA samples demonstrated consistent results between PCR–restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis and real-time ARMS-qPCR. However, the latter method was much more sensitive for detecting low percentages of mutant heteroplasmy. Three samples contained allele-specific oligonucleotide-detectable but RFLP-undetectable mutations. Conclusions: The real-time ARMS-qPCR method provides rapid, reliable, one-step quantitative detection of heteroplasmic mutant mtDNA.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1373/clinchem.2004.031153

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 1981, Nature, 290, 457, 10.1038/290457a0 · DOI
  2. 2001, Nat Rev Genet, 2, 342, 10.1038/35072063 · DOI
  3. 1996, N Engl J Med, 333, 638
  4. 1992, Annu Rev Biochem, 61, 1175, 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.005523 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 1998, Nucleic Acids Res, 26, 112, 10.1093/nar/26.1.112 · DOI
  6. 2003, The molecular and genetic basis of neurologic and psychiatric disease, 189
  7. 1997, Clin Chem, 43, 1857, 10.1093/clinchem/43.10.1857 · DOI
  8. 1998, Am J Med Genet, 77, 385
  9. 2002, N Engl J Med, 346, 811, 10.1056/NEJMoa012035 · DOI
  10. 1989, Nucleic Acids Res, 17, 2503, 10.1093/nar/17.7.2503 · DOI
  11. 1991, Nucleic Acids Res, 19, 5444, 10.1093/nar/19.19.5444 · DOI
  12. 1997, Clin Chem, 43, 1241, 10.1093/clinchem/43.7.1241 · DOI
  13. 2001, Clin Chem, 47, 1641, 10.1093/clinchem/47.9.1641 · DOI
  14. 1992, Am J Hum Genet, 50, 934
  15. 2002, Diabetologia, 45, 1577, 10.1007/s00125-002-0893-7 · DOI
  16. 2001, Nucleic Acids Res, 29, E13, 10.1093/nar/29.3.e13 · DOI
  17. 2003, J Med Genet, 40, e125, 10.1136/jmg.40.11.e125 · DOI
  18. 2003, J Clin Virol, 27, 97, 10.1016/S1386-6532(02)00134-8 · DOI
  19. 2002, Nucleic Acids Res, 30, e68, 10.1093/nar/gnf067 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bai, R.-K., & Wong, L.-J. C.
Affiliations
Institute for Molecular and Human Genetics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2004-06-01
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
996-1001
ISSN
  • 0009-9147
  • 1530-8561
Cited by
135
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review