A new realtime PCR method to overcome significant quantitative inaccuracy due to slight amplification inhibition
 Michele Guescini†^{1, 2}Email author,
 Davide Sisti†^{3},
 Marco BL Rocchi^{3},
 Laura Stocchi^{1} and
 Vilberto Stocchi^{1, 2}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/147121059326
© Guescini et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
Received: 21 April 2008
Accepted: 30 July 2008
Published: 30 July 2008
Abstract
Background
Realtime PCR analysis is a sensitive DNA quantification technique that has recently gained considerable attention in biotechnology, microbiology and molecular diagnostics. Although, the cyclethreshold (Ct) method is the present "gold standard", it is far from being a standard assay. Uniform reaction efficiency among samples is the most important assumption of this method. Nevertheless, some authors have reported that it may not be correct and a slight PCR efficiency decrease of about 4% could result in an error of up to 400% using the Ct method. This reaction efficiency decrease may be caused by inhibiting agents used during nucleic acid extraction or copurified from the biological sample.
We propose a new method (Cy_{ 0 }) that does not require the assumption of equal reaction efficiency between unknowns and standard curve.
Results
The Cy_{ 0 }method is based on the fit of Richards' equation to realtime PCR data by nonlinear regression in order to obtain the best fit estimators of reaction parameters. Subsequently, these parameters were used to calculate the Cy_{ 0 }value that minimizes the dependence of its value on PCR kinetic.
The Ct, second derivative (Cp), sigmoidal curve fitting method (SCF) and Cy_{ 0 }methods were compared using two criteria: precision and accuracy. Our results demonstrated that, in optimal amplification conditions, these four methods are equally precise and accurate. However, when PCR efficiency was slightly decreased, diluting amplification mix quantity or adding a biological inhibitor such as IgG, the SCF, Ct and Cp methods were markedly impaired while the Cy_{ 0 }method gave significantly more accurate and precise results.
Conclusion
Our results demonstrate that Cy_{ 0 }represents a significant improvement over the standard methods for obtaining a reliable and precise nucleic acid quantification even in suboptimal amplification conditions overcoming the underestimation caused by the presence of some PCR inhibitors.
Background
In the last few years, the realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has rapidly become the most widely used technique in modern molecular biology [1–4]. This technique relies on fluorescencebased detection of amplicon DNA and allows the kinetics of PCR amplification to be monitored in real time, making it possible to quantify nucleic acids with extraordinary ease and precision. With a large dynamic range (7–8 magnitudes) and a high degree of sensitivity (5–10 molecules), the realtime PCR addresses the evident requirement for quantitative data analysis in molecular medicine, biotechnology, microbiology and diagnostics [5, 6].
Although, the realtime PCR analysis has gained considerable attention in many fields of molecular biology, it is far from being a standard assay. One of the problems associated with this assay, which has a direct impact on its reliability, is inconsistent data analysis. At the present, realtime PCR analysis is highly subjective and, if carried out inappropriately, confuses the actual results [7]. Many different options for data processing are currently available. The basic choice in real time PCR calculations is between absolute quantification, based on standard curve, and relative quantification, based on PCR efficiency calculation. Using the software currently available, analysis of realtime PCR data is generally based on the "cyclethreshold" method. The cyclethreshold is defined as the fractional cycle number in the loglinear region of PCR amplification in which the reaction reaches fixed amounts of amplicon DNA. There are two methods for determining the cyclethreshold value; one method, namely fit point, is performed by drawing a line parallel to the xaxis of the realtime fluorescence intensity curve (Ct) [8]. The second, namely second derivative, calculates the fractional cycle where the second derivative of the realtime fluorescence intensity curve reaches the maximum value (Cp) [9]. Standard curve method requires generating serial dilutions of a given sample and performing multiple PCR reactions on each dilution [10, 11], the thresholdcycle values are then plotted versus the log of the dilution and a linear regression is performed from which the mean efficiency can be derived. This approach is only valid if the thresholdcycle values are measured from the exponential phase of the PCR reaction and if the efficiency is identical between amplifications. Furthermore, this efficiency is assumed to be the same for all the standard dilutions, but some authors have reported that this assumption may be questionable [12].
It is wellrecognized that template quality is one of the most important determinants of realtime PCR reliability and reproducibility [13], and numerous authors have shown the significant reduction in the sensitivity and kinetics of realtime PCR assays caused by inhibitory components frequently found in biological samples [14–17]. The inhibiting agents may be reagents used during nucleic acid extraction or copurified components from the biological sample such as bile salts, urea, haeme, heparin, and immunoglobulin G. Inhibitors can generate strongly inaccurate quantitative results; while, a high degree of inhibition may even create falsenegative results.
The Ct method is the most widely used method even though its calculation is userdependent. The Ct method is quite stable and straightforward but the accuracy of estimates is strongly impaired if efficiency is not equal in all reactions. Indeed, uniform reaction efficiency is the most important assumption of the Ct method.
An alternative approach, proposed by Liu and Saint [18], assumes a dynamic change in efficiency fitting PCR amplification with a sigmoid function (S igmoidal c urve f itting method, SCF). One of the advantages of this regression analysis is that it allows us to estimate the initial template amount directly from the nonlinear regression, eliminating the need for a standard curve. These pioneering works showed that it was possible to obtain absolute quantification from realtime fluorescence curve shape. However, recent reports have demonstrated that, in an optimized assay, the Ct method remains the gold standard due to the inherent errors of the multiple estimates used in nonlinear regression [19, 20].
We propose, in this report, a modified standard curvebased method (named Cy_{ 0 }) that does not require the assumption of uniform reaction efficiency between standards and unknown and does not involve any choice of threshold level by the user.
The aim of this work was also to compare the accuracy and precision of the SCF, Ct, Cp and Cy_{ 0 }methods in presence of varying PCR kinetics. Our results clearly show that the proposed data processing procedure can effectively be applied in the quantification of samples characterized by slight amplification inhibition obtaining reliable and precise results.
Methods
Experimental design
The absolute quantification method relies on the comparison of distinct samples, such as the comparison of a biological sample with a standard curve of known initial concentration [21]. We wondered how accuracy and precision change when a standard curve is compared with unknown samples characterized by different efficiencies. A natural way of studying the effect of efficiency differences among samples on quantification would be to compare the amounts of a quantified gene.
A slight amplification inhibition in the quantitative realtime PCR experiments was obtained by using two systems: decreasing the amplification mix used in the reaction and adding varying amounts of IgG, a known PCR inhibitor.
For the first system, we amplified the MTND1 gene by realtime PCR in reactions having the same initial amount of DNA but different amounts of SYBR Green I Master mix. A standard curve was performed over a wide range of input DNA (3.14 × 10^{7}–3.14 × 10^{1}) in the presence of optimal amplification conditions (100% amplification mix), while the unknowns were run in the presence of the same starting DNA amounts but with amplification mix quantities ranging from 60% to 100%. This produced different reaction kinetics, mimicking the amplification inhibition that often occurs in biological samples [17, 22].
Furthermore, quantitative realtime PCR quantifications were performed in the presence of an optimal amplification reaction mix added with serial dilutions of IgG (0.0625 – 2 μg/ml) thus acting as the inhibitory agent [23].
The reaction efficiency obtained was estimated by the LinReg method [24]. This approach identifies the exponential phase of the reaction by plotting the fluorescence on a log scale. A linear regression is then performed leading to the estimation of the efficiency of each PCR reaction.
Quantitative RealTime PCR
The DNA standard consisted of a pGEMT (Promega) plasmid containing a 104 bp fragment of the mitochondrial gene NADH dehydrogenase 1 (MTND1) as insert. This DNA fragment was produced by the ND1/ND2 primer pair (forward ND1: 5'ACGCCATAAAACTCTTCACCAAAG3' and reverse ND2: 5'TAGTAGAAGAGCGATGGTGAGAGCTA3'). This plasmid was purified using the Plasmid Midi Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The final concentration of the standard plasmid was estimated spectophotometrically by averaging three replicate A_{260} absorbance determinations.
Real time PCR amplifications were conducted using LightCycler^{®} 480 SYBR Green I Master (Roche) according to the manufacturer's instructions, with 500 nM primers and a variable amount of DNA standard in a 20 μl final reaction volume. Thermocycling was conducted using a LightCycler^{®} 480 (Roche) initiated by a 10 min incubation at 95°C, followed by 40 cycles (95°C for 5 s; 60°C for 5 s; 72°C for 20 s) with a single fluorescent reading taken at the end of each cycle. Each reaction combination, namely starting DNA and amplification mix percentage, was conducted in triplicate and repeated in four separate amplification runs. All the runs were completed with a melt curve analysis to confirm the specificity of amplification and lack of primer dimers. Ct (fit point method) and Cp (second derivative method) values were determined by the LightCycler^{®} 480 software version 1.2 and exported into an MS Excel data sheet (Microsoft) for analysis after background subtraction (available as Additional file 1). For Ct (fit point method) evaluation a fluorescence threshold manually set to 0.5 was used for all runs.
Description of the SCF method
where F_{ 0 }represents the initial target quantity expressed in fluorescence units. Conversion of F_{ 0 }to the number of target molecules was obtained by a calibration curve in which the log input DNA was related to the log of F_{ 0 }[18]. Subsequently, this equation was used for quantification with log transformation of fluorescence data to increase goodnessoffit as described in Goll et al. 2006 [19].
Description of the Cy_{ 0 }method
where x is the cycle number, F_{ x }is the reaction fluorescence at cycle x, F_{ max }is the maximal reaction fluorescence, x is the fractional cycle of the turning point of the curve, d represents the Richards coefficient, and F_{ b }is the background reaction fluorescence. The inflection point coordinate (Flex) was calculated as follows (Additional file 2):
Although the Cy_{ 0 }is a single quantitative entity, as is the Ct or Cp for threshold methodologies, it accounts for the reaction kinetic because it is calculated on the basis of the slope of the inflection point of fluorescence data.
Statistical data analysis
Nonlinear regressions (for 4parameter sigmoid and 5parameter Richards functions) were performed determining unweighted least squares estimates of parameters using the LevenbergMarquardt method. Accuracy was calculated using the following equation:
$R{E}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}={\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\frac{{x}_{{i}_{obs}\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}{{x}_{{i}_{\mathrm{exp}}\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}1\right)}$, where $R{E}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ was the relative error, while ${x}_{{i}_{obs}\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ and ${x}_{{i}_{\mathrm{exp}}\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ were the estimated and the true number of DNA molecules for each combination of input DNA (n_{ Dna }) and amplification mix percentage (%_{ mix }) used in the PCR. Precision was calculated as:
$C{V}_{({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix})}=\frac{{s}_{{\overline{x}}_{obs\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}}{{\overline{x}}_{obs\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}$, where $C{V}_{({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix})}$ was the coefficient of variation, ${\overline{x}}_{obs\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ and ${s}_{{\overline{x}}_{obs\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}$ were the mean and the standard deviation for each combination of n_{Dna} and %_{mix}. In order to verify that the Richards curves, obtained by nonlinear regression of fluorescence data, were not significantly different from the sigmoidal curves, the values of d parameter were compared to the expected value d = 1, using t test for one sample. For each combination of n_{ Dna }, %_{ mix }, the t values were calculated as follow:
${t}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}=\frac{{\overline{d}}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}1}{S{E}_{{d}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}}$, where ${\overline{d}}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ and $S{E}_{{d}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}}$ were the mean and the standard error of d values for each combination of n_{ Dna }and %_{ mix }, with p(t) < 0.05 for significance level. $R{E}_{\left({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix}\right)}$ values were reported using 3d scatterplot graphic, a complete second order polinomial regression function was shown to estimate the trend of accuracy values. $C{V}_{({n}_{Dna},{\%}_{mix})}$ where also reported using 3d contour plots using thirdorder polynomials spline fitting. All elaborations and graphics were obtained using Excel (Microsoft), Statistica (Statsoft) and Sigmaplot 10 (Systat Software Inc.).
Results
Experimental system 1: reduction of amplification mix percentage
Precision and accuracy of the SCF method
Previous studies have shown that the SCF approach can lead to quantification without prior knowledge of amplification efficiency [18, 19, 26]; therefore, we evaluated the performance of this method on our data set. To assess the effect of unequal efficiencies on accuracy, the calculated input DNA, expressed as molecular number, was compared to the expected value obtaining the relative error (RE). The precision was further evaluated measuring the variation coefficient (CV%) of the estimated initial DNA in the presence of different PCR efficiencies and input DNA.
In our experimental design, the SCF method showed a very poor precision (mean CV% = 594.74%) and low accuracy (mean RE = 5.05). The impact of amplification efficiency decline on accuracy was very strong resulting in an underestimate of samples of up to 500% (Additional file 3). The log transformation of fluorescence data before sigmoidal fitting significantly reduced the CV% and RE to 66.12% and 0.20, respectively; however, the overall bias remained the same [19]. Finally, we also tested an improved SCF approach based on a previous study by Rutledge 2004 [26] without obtaining significant amelioration (Additional file 4).
The Cy_{ 0 }method
Comparison of five Sshaped models to fit the PCR curve: Sigmoid, Richards, Gompertz, Hill and Chapman.
Name  Equation  Estimated Parameters  R ^{2}  Adj R ^{2}  Standard Error of Estimate  

F _{ max }  b  c  F _{ b }  d  
Sigmoid  f = F_{ b }+F_{ max }/(1+exp((xc)/b))  45.11  1.49  22.37  0.03  1  1  0.1354  
Richards  f = F_{ b }+(F_{ max }/(1+exp((1/b)*(xc)))^d)  45.11  1.58  21.95  0.02  1.20  1  1  0.0926 
Gompertz  f = F_{ b }+F_{ max }*exp(exp((xc)/b))  45.19  2.15  21.45  0.29  0.9992  0.9992  0.6006  
Hill  f = F_{ b }+F_{ max }*x^b/(d^b+x^b)  45.18  14.95  0.08  22.34  1  1  0.1351  
Chapman  f = F_{ b }+F_{ max }*(1exp(b*x))^d  45.19  0.46  0.29  20615  0.9992  0.9992  0.6006 
t statistic values obtained for all variable combinations.
Amplification mix percentage  

Log _{10} input DNA  100%  90%  80%  70%  60% 
7.5  0.28348  1.15431  2.9303*  5.43493**  4.26067** 
6.5  3.0233*  0.5329  7.8552**  8.68609**  7.28178** 
5.5  2.2195*  2.70419*  4.7185**  8.61406**  4.60465** 
4.5  0.97856  1.32162  2.34*  16.5192**  17.5903** 
3.5  1.00647  1.038  2.3307*  13.2572**  4.65683** 
2.5  1.731  0.5995  5.8385**  6.90378**  6.13465** 
1.5  0.14417  1.25452  0.898  1.87978  3.69668** 
Precision and accuracy of the Ct, Cp and Cy_{ 0 }methods
Comparison of mean Relative Error and mean Variation Coefficient among the Ct, Cp, Cy_{ 0 }and SCF methods.
Ct  Cp  Cy _{ 0 }  SCF  Log _{10} SCF  

Mean CV%  39.70%  21.80%  22.52%  594.74%^{a}  66.12%^{a} 
Mean RE  0.318  0.184  0.128  5.058^{a}  0.205^{a} 
Experimental system 2: Realtime PCR quantification in the presence of the inhibitor IgG
Discussion
None of the current quantitative PCR data treatment methods is in fact fully assumptionfree, and their statistical reliability are often poorly characterized. In this study, we evaluated whether known realtime elaboration methods could estimate the amount of DNA in biological samples with precision and accuracy when reaction efficiencies of the unknown are different from those of the standard curve.
Our experimental systems consisted in the quantification of samples with the same known starting template amount but the amplification reaction, performed for the realtime PCR assay, had a slightly decreasing efficiency. This is clearly not in agreement with the main assumption of the threshold approach which holds that the amplification efficiency of samples has to be identical to, or not significantly different from, that predicted by the standard curve. However, such an assumption has been reported to be patently invalid for many cases in medical diagnostics. In fact, some, if not all, of the biological samples may contain inhibitors that are not present in the standard nucleic acid samples used to construct the calibration curve, leading to an underestimation of the DNA quantities in the unknown samples [28, 29]. In our study, slightly decreasing efficiencies were obtained by two systems: diluting the master enzyme mix or adding IgG, a known inhibitor of PCR. Although, the first system is an "in vitro" simulation of PCR inhibition, it produces amplification curves very similar to those obtained in the presence of a biological inhibitor like IgG.
Notably, our experimental setup is not characterized by aberrant amplification reactions. On the contrary, the reactions show a slight mean efficiency decrease which is always the case of biological samples. This PCR inhibition remains undetected when using a threshold approach leading to target underestimation. Moreover, small differences in amplification efficiency produce large quantitative errors and the frequency and magnitude of these errors are virtually impossible to ascertain using a threshold approach. It has been shown that a difference as small as 4% in PCR efficiency could translate into a 400% error in comparative Ct method based quantification [24].
Considering previous works [18, 19] which demonstrated the capability of the SCF method to quantify a sample without prior knowledge of amplification efficiency, our first choice was to process the experimental data by the SCF method. The effectiveness of the SCF approach is based on curve fitting of raw data so that variations unique to each amplification reaction are incorporated into the analysis. Hence, the results reported herein surprisingly demonstrated that the accuracy and precision of the SCF method was markedly impaired when efficiency fell. In fact, when PCR efficiency decreased by about 2.5% (88.8% efficiency value in the presence of 100% of the amplification mix dropped to 84.4% efficiency in the presence of 60% of the mix), we observed, using the SCF method with logtransformation, that the RE and CV went from 15% to 43% and from 61% to 55%, respectively.
Furthermore, we found that, when the amplification curve was inhibited, by IgG, the method proposed by Rutledge [26] can not be applied because for each cutoff cycle eliminated from the plateau phase the F_{ 0 }value progressively decreased without ever reaching a minimum value. These observations are in agreement with two recent studies, which reported that it is possible to obtain absolute quantification from realtime data without a standard curve, but the Ct method remains a gold standard due to the inherent errors of the multiple estimates used in nonlinear regression [19, 20]. These observations are in accordance with Feller's conclusions that different Sshaped curves can be effectively fitted with various sigmoid models [30], each providing distinct F_{ 0 }values. Thus sigmoid fit methods such as the logistic model, used in the SCF approach, are purely descriptive and quantitative results may be unreliable. This led us to develop a new mathematical data treatment method, named Cy_{ 0 }, based on nonlinear regression fitting of realtime fluorescence data. The proposed method's main advantages are its use of the Richards equation for obtaining the coordinate of the inflection point and the determination of the quantitative entity Cy_{ 0 }using the five parameters of reaction curve.
Although the logistic growth equation generates a curve that tends towards an exponential form at low fluorescence values, making this curve ideal to model PCR reaction, its maximum slope, or inflection point, is always imposed to be at half the value of the upper asymptote, (F_{ max }F_{ b })/2. This is unsatisfactory because the factors that determine the growth rate are complex and some amplification systems, although characterized by good reaction efficiency, as assessed by standard curve, do not have the center of symmetry in the inflection point. The Richards equation is a more flexible growth function because it has an additional parameter, which is a shape parameter that can make the Richards equation equivalent to the logistic, Gompertz, or monomolecular equations [31, 32]. Variation of the shape parameter allows the point of inflection of the curve to be at any value between the minimum and the upper asymptote; when d = 1 the Eq. 3 becomes the sigmoidal equation.
Furthermore, since very small errors of the multiple estimates used in nonlinear regression lead to large variations in F_{ 0 }values, the realtime PCR kinetic parameters were used to define a new quantitative entity, the Cy_{ 0 }. The Cy_{ 0 }relies on the inflection point position and on the slope of the fluorescence curve at that point, so that its value slightly changes in relation to PCR efficiency. In particular, in a slightly inhibited amplification reaction, the fluorescence curves are shifted towards the right and/or they are less steep; this generates higher Ct values than those found under optimal amplification conditions, underestimating the target amount. In the Cy_{ 0 }method, the tangents, calculated from different PCR efficiency, tend to intersect at a common point near the xaxis leading to small variations in the Cy_{ 0 }values (Fig. 4).
The standard curve approach was chosen for the proposed method because currently there no genuine mathematical model for PCR efficiency assessment. The main complication is that actual efficiency amplification is not constant through the PCR run being high in exponential phase and gradually declining towards the plateau phase [33–35]. However, most current methods of PCR efficiency assessment report "overall" efficiency as a single value [13, 24, 36, 37]. Moreover, recent publications on PCR efficiency assessment have concentrated on the analysis of individual shapes of fluorescence plots in order to estimate a dynamic efficiency value [19, 20, 27, 38]. This proliferation of new methods to assess PCR efficiency demonstrates that, at present, there is not an accepted procedure to evaluate PCR efficiency from a single run, hence some methods can "overestimate" and others "underestimate" the "true" PCR efficiency [8]. In contrast, the standard curve method is based on a simple approximation of data obtained in standard dilutions to unknown samples. In this procedure PCR efficiency assessment is based on the slope of the standard curve. Indeed, the original method (Ct) does not account for PCR efficiencies in individual target samples. The proposed procedure overcomes this limitation by evaluating single amplification variations using Richards curve fitting and subsequently produces a Cy_{ 0 }value that minimizes the dependence of its value on PCR kinetic.
We then compared our method with the Ct method, the actual "gold standard" in realtime PCR quantification and the Cp method which is also used in molecular diagnostics. Both methods are based on standard curve methodology and are the most frequently used in this field. The Ct, Cp and Cy_{ 0 }methods were evaluated on the same data set using two criteria: precision and accuracy. We defined the accuracy of a model as its ability to provide expected concentrations of the known dilutions under different PCR amplification efficiencies. On the contrary, precision is related to the variability of the results obtained from a given model, and it indicates whether reliable results may be obtained from a small data collection. Our results clearly demonstrated that, under optimal amplification conditions, these three methods were equally precise and accurate. However, when the PCR efficiency decreased, due to amplification mix dilution or IgG presence, the Ct method was markedly impaired and the Cp and Cy_{ 0 }methods proved to be significantly more accurate than the Ct method. Notably, the Cy_{ 0 }method showed accuracy levels higher than the Cp method maintaining the same precision.
The ability to carry out reliable nuclei acid quantification even in suboptimal amplification conditions is particularly useful when PCR optimization is not possible, as in the case of highthroughput screening of gene expression or biological samples difficult to cleanse of PCR inhibitors.
Furthermore, the Cy_{ 0 }method is completely objective and assumptionfree. Indeed, it does not require the choice of a threshold value and the assumption of similar amplification efficiency between the standard curve and biological samples, necessary in the Ct method. Moreover, there is no need to assume that base pair composition and amplicon size do not impact the fluorescence characteristics of SYBR Green I, required in optical calibration methods like SCF [19]. Our procedure may have future applications in TaqMan assays, where the Taq DNA polymerase digests a probe labelled with a fluorescent reporter and quencher dye and the signal diverges from the product resulting in nonsymmetric amplification curves that can be effectively modelled by Richards equation [39]. Further work is needed to extensively verify the accuracy and precision of the Cy_{ 0 }method in the presence of other known PCR inhibitors like phenol, haemoglobin, fat and tannic acid [17, 22].
Conclusion
Realtime PCR analysis is becoming increasingly important in biomedical research because of its accuracy, sensitivity and high efficiency. Although, realtime PCR analysis has gained considerable attention, it is far from being a standard assay. The standard methods are quite stable and straightforward but the accuracy of estimates is strongly impaired if efficiency is not equal in all reactions. Furthermore, the assumption of uniform efficiency has been reported to be invalid in many cases regarding medical diagnostics. In fact, the biological samples may contain inhibitors that could lead to different amplification efficiencies among samples.
We propose, in this report, a modified standard curvebased method, called Cy_{ 0 }, that does not require the assumption of uniform reaction efficiency between standards and unknown.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first method in which the stability and reliability of a standard curve approach is combined with a fitting procedure to overcome the key problem of PCR efficiency determination in realtime PCR nucleic acid quantification. The data reported herein clearly show that the Cy_{ 0 }method is a valid alternative to the standard method for obtaining reliable and precise nucleic acid quantification even in suboptimal amplification conditions, such as those found in the presence of biological inhibitors like IgG.
Notes
Abbreviations
 Cp:

crossing point
 Ct:

threshold cycle
 CV:

coefficient of variation
 IgG:

immunoglobulin G
 RE:

relative error
 SCF:

sigmoidal curve fitting.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
We thank Dr. Pasquale Tibollo for technical assistance and Dr. Giosuè Annibalini for helpful comments on the manuscript.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Higuchi R, Fockler C, Dollinger G, Watson R: Kinetic PCR analysis: realtime monitoring of DNA amplification reactions. Biotechnology (N Y) 1993, 11(9):1026–1030. 10.1038/nbt09931026View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Schmittgen TD: Realtime quantitative PCR. Methods 2001, 25(4):383–385. 10.1006/meth.2001.1260View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bustin SA, Nolan T: Pitfalls of quantitative realtime reversetranscription polymerase chain reaction. J Biomol Tech 2004, 15(3):155–166.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gingeras TR, Higuchi R, Kricka LJ, Lo YM, Wittwer CT: Fifty years of molecular (DNA/RNA) diagnostics. Clin Chem 2005, 51(3):661–671. 10.1373/clinchem.2004.045336View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bustin SA, Mueller R: Realtime reverse transcription PCR (qRTPCR) and its potential use in clinical diagnosis. Clin Sci (Lond) 2005, 109(4):365–379.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nolan T, Hands RE, Bustin SA: Quantification of mRNA using realtime RTPCR. Nature Protocols 2006, 1(3):1559–1582. 10.1038/nprot.2006.236View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Marubini E, Verderio P, Raggi CC, Pazzagli M, Orlando C: Statistical diagnostics emerging from external quality control of realtime PCR. The International journal of biological markers 2004, 19(2):141–146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pfaffl MW: Quantification strategies in real time PCR. In AZ of quantitative PCR Edited by: Bustin SA La Jolla, CA, International University Line 2004.Google Scholar
 LuuThe V, Paquet N, Calvo E, Cumps J: Improved realtime RTPCR method for highthroughput measurements using second derivative calculation and double correction. BioTechniques 2005, 38(2):287–293.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Livak KJ: ABI Prism 7700 sequence detection system. User Bulletin 2. PE Applied Biosystems 1997.Google Scholar
 Rutledge RG, Cote C: Mathematics of quantitative kinetic PCR and the application of standard curves. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(16):e93. 10.1093/nar/gng093PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Raeymaekers L: A commentary on the practical applications of competitive PCR. Genome Res 1995, 5(1):91–94. 10.1101/gr.5.1.91View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bar T, Stahlberg A, Muszta A, Kubista M: Kinetic Outlier Detection (KOD) in realtime PCR. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(17):e105. 10.1093/nar/gng106PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lefevre J, Hankins C, Pourreaux K, Voyer H, Coutlee F: Prevalence of selective inhibition of HPV16 DNA amplification in cervicovaginal lavages. Journal of medical virology 2004, 72(1):132–137. 10.1002/jmv.10539View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sunen E, Casas N, Moreno B, Zigorraga C: Comparison of two methods for the detection of hepatitis A virus in clam samples (Tapes spp.) by reverse transcriptionnested PCR. International journal of food microbiology 2004, 91(2):147–154. 10.1016/S01681605(03)00374XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jiang J, Alderisio KA, Singh A, Xiao L: Development of procedures for direct extraction of Cryptosporidium DNA from water concentrates and for relief of PCR inhibitors. Applied and environmental microbiology 2005, 71(3):1135–1141. 10.1128/AEM.71.3.11351141.2005PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kontanis EJ, Reed FA: Evaluation of realtime PCR amplification efficiencies to detect PCR inhibitors. J Forensic Sci 2006, 51(4):795–804. 10.1111/j.15564029.2006.00182.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Liu W, Saint DA: Validation of a quantitative method for real time PCR kinetics. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2002, 294(2):347–353. 10.1016/S0006291X(02)004783View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Goll R, Olsen T, Cui G, Florholmen J: Evaluation of absolute quantitation by nonlinear regression in probebased realtime PCR. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7: 107. 10.1186/147121057107PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Karlen Y, McNair A, Perseguers S, Mazza C, Mermod N: Statistical significance of quantitative PCR. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8: 131. 10.1186/147121058131PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bustin SA: Absolute quantification of mRNA using realtime reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. J Mol Endocrinol 2000, 25(2):169–193. 10.1677/jme.0.0250169View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Tichopad A, Didier A, Pfaffl MW: Inhibition of realtime RTPCR quantification due to tissuespecific contaminants. Mol Cell Probes 2004, 18(1):45–50. 10.1016/j.mcp.2003.09.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nolan T, Hands RE, Ogunkolade W, Bustin SA: SPUD: a quantitative PCR assay for the detection of inhibitors in nucleic acid preparations. Anal Biochem 2006, 351(2):308–310. 10.1016/j.ab.2006.01.051View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ramakers C, Ruijter JM, Deprez RH, Moorman AF: Assumptionfree analysis of quantitative realtime polymerase chain reaction (PCR) data. Neurosci Lett 2003, 339(1):62–66. 10.1016/S03043940(02)014234View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Richards FJ: A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of experimental Botany 1959, 10: 290–300. 10.1093/jxb/10.2.290View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rutledge RG: Sigmoidal curvefitting redefines quantitative realtime PCR with the prospective of developing automated highthroughput applications. Nucleic Acids Res 2004, 32(22):e178. 10.1093/nar/gnh177PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Alvarez MJ, VilaOrtiz GJ, Salibe MC, Podhajcer OL, Pitossi FJ: Model based analysis of realtime PCR data from DNA binding dye protocols. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8(1):85. 10.1186/14712105885PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Meijerink J, Mandigers C, van de Locht L, Tonnissen E, Goodsaid F, Raemaekers J: A novel method to compensate for different amplification efficiencies between patient DNA samples in quantitative realtime PCR. J Mol Diagn 2001, 3(2):55–61.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stahlberg A, Aman P, Ridell B, Mostad P, Kubista M: Quantitative realtime PCR method for detection of Blymphocyte monoclonality by comparison of kappa and lambda immunoglobulin light chain expression. Clin Chem 2003, 49(1):51–59. 10.1373/49.1.51View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Feller W: On the logistic law of growth and its empirical verification in biology. Acta Bioth Ser A 1940, 51–66. 10.1007/BF01602862Google Scholar
 Birch CPD: A new generalized logistic sigmoid growth equation compared with the Richards growth equation. Annals of Botany 1999, 83: 713–723. 10.1006/anbo.1999.0877View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Yin X, Goudriaan J, Lantinga EA, Vos J, Spiertz HJ: A flexible sigmoid function of determinate growth. Ann Bot (Lond) 2003, 91(3):361–371. 10.1093/aob/mcg029View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lalam N: Estimation of the reaction efficiency in polymerase chain reaction. J Theor Biol 2006, 242(4):947–953. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.06.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Zhao S, Fernald RD: Comprehensive algorithm for quantitative realtime polymerase chain reaction. J Comput Biol 2005, 12(8):1047–1064. 10.1089/cmb.2005.12.1047PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gevertz JL, Dunn SM, Roth CM: Mathematical model of realtime PCR kinetics. Biotechnol Bioeng 2005, 92(3):346–355. 10.1002/bit.20617View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Peirson SN, Butler JN, Foster RG: Experimental validation of novel and conventional approaches to quantitative realtime PCR data analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(14):e73. 10.1093/nar/gng073PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Tichopad A, Dilger M, Schwarz G, Pfaffl MW: Standardized determination of realtime PCR efficiency from a single reaction setup. Nucleic Acids Res 2003, 31(20):e122. 10.1093/nar/gng122PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Liu W, Saint DA: A new quantitative method of real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assay based on simulation of polymerase chain reaction kinetics. Anal Biochem 2002, 302(1):52–59. 10.1006/abio.2001.5530View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Livak KJ Flood, S.J., Marmaro, J., Giusti, W., Deetz, K.: Oligonucleotides with fluorescent dyes at opposite ends provide a quenched probe system useful for detecting PCR product and nucleic acid hybridization. PCR Methods appl 1995, 4: 357–362.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.