| | |||||||
| Register | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Protocols and Methods Forum Post Any Protocol, Method, Technique, Procedure or Tips / Troubleshooting for any Molecular Biology Technique. |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
| |||
| |||
| I would reiterate a point that Brian made earlier in this string - negative controls frequently exhibit some "amplification" in qPCR, but if the cycle number is high it should not be a concern. Even if you do have some residual genomic contamination that is amplifying in the absence of cDNA (I'm guessing you are running controls in which you do not reverse transcribe your RNA), it probably is not contributing to the signal in your cDNA samples. My no-RT controls frequently show some amplification (at high Ct's) that does indeed appear to be from genomic DNA, but when I run the cDNA reactions on a gel there is no evidence of genomic amplifcation. Presumably this is because the cDNA is in much greater abundance than the residual genomic contamination. If the Ct of your negative control is 10 cycles higher than your cDNA samples then the genomic DNA is only about 0.1% of the cDNA abundance. And, as Brian said, you frequently get a Ct value even if there is no DNA template - its not unusual for me to see Ct's of 33 or so for my water controls. But as long as your target templates are amplifying at much lower cycles, whatever this artifactual amplifcation is should not be affecting your results in any significant way. Of course, if you are getting amplification in your controls at cycles similar to your targets, then you do have a significant contamination problem, and the other suggestions posted here apply. Jeremy On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Analia Alet <[Only registered users see links. ].ar> wrote: -- Jeremy Coate Dept. of Plant Biology Cornell University [Only registered users see links. ] 607-342-2679 |
| Tags |
| contamination , dna , qrtpcr |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|