Dear all,

I hope you could help me with the following question: There are different adjuvants that are used in qPCR for quantifying soil microbial functional genes (which often means using »degenerate« primers with wobble bases), like for example T4gp32 protein, BSA, DMSO etc. I know each of those have it's unique properties and sometimes BSA and DMSO are also used in combination. As far as I've understood BSA is used to reduce inhibition but also to increase specificity at amplifying regions with secondary structures while DMSO binds to the DNA and prevents reannealing of single stranded DNA and also facilitates primer annealing so therefore also increases specificity. T4gp32 should also increase the yield and specificity of PCR products from soil samples. Are my conclusions correct? If yes, my question is the following: How can I design a decision tree on whether to use any of the mentioned adjuvants in qPCR reaction for quantifying soil microbial community using a standard curve? If there is some paper where those things are nicely explained please let me know. Some examples from our lab are listed below (4 different examples where T4 gp32 protein was used):

  • For 16S rRNA assay we are using common non-degenerate 341F and 534R primers. Addition of T4gp32 showed similar efficiency of the standard curve (around 90%) and lower copy numbers (10-30%) for identical samples used in the test. Shall I assume that increased specificity by addition T4gp32 lowered the observed copy numbers? What would be the best way to check this?
  • For nosZ assay we are using degenerate primers nosZ 1840F and nosZ 2090R. Addition of T4gp32 showed reduced efficiency (86% vs. 96%) and lower observed copy numbers (60-70%) as compared to non-amended reaction. Shall I assume increased specificity? What is more important here – increased specificity or decereased efficiency?
  • For nosZ clade 2 assay we are using 1153 nosZ 8F and 1888 nosZ 29R degenerate primers. Addition of T4gp32 showed decreased efficiency (67% vs. 77%) but higher copy numbers (10-40%) as compared to non-amended reaction. What would be the next step to make a decision of using an adjuvant or not?
  • nirK is quantified by nirK 876F and nirK 1040R degenerate primers. Addition of T4gp32 showed comparable efficiency (92% vs. 96%), however the sample copy numbers of amended reactions (with T4 gp32) were 85-90% lower. Probably this is a result of increased specificity, but how to check it?
  • I know that inter-run variability can be quite high and copy numbers of the same samples can vary up to 30% so maybe I'm stressing too much here, but I would really like to understand the mechanisms involved in the reactions.

    To sum up: It seems that T4gp32 influences different assays in different ways. On one hand it looks like it increases specificity but also decreases efficiency of the assay, on the other hand it doesn't influence the efficiency much, but lowers or increases the copy numbers of the samples. How could I decide for its use (or any of the other adjuvants for that matter)? Probably a gel electrophoresis would be a good start to examine the products there (eventhough melt curves of all the assays were specific)?

    Just to note: All of the above tests of T4gp32 addition were done in the same run for individual assays. Melt curves were always specific with only one peak. Inhibition was tested by spiking the external plasmid of known quantity to the sample amount (2ng DNA) that is usually used for qPCR reaction and comparing the Cq cycles with positive control consisting of only water + known quantity of external plasmid. No inhibition in any of the samples was noticed.

    I know it's rather exhaustive read but I'll really appreciate all the answers that I get.

    Thank you very much in advance!

    More Anton Govednik's questions See All
    Similar questions and discussions