4.6 Article

Impact of metal oxide nanoparticles on in vitro DNA amplification

Journal

PEERJ
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.7228

Keywords

Nanoparticle; DNA polymerase; Metal oxides; DNA replication; Genotoxiciy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41877029]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2016YFD0800206]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2662017JC008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is used as an in vitro model system of DNA replication to assess the genotoxicity of nanoparticles (NPs). Prior results showed that several types of NPs inhibited PCR efficiency and increased amplicon error frequency. In this study, we examined the effects of various metal oxide NPs on inhibiting PCR, using high-vs. low-fidelity DNA polymerases; we also examined NP-induced DNA mutation bias at the single nucleotide level. The effects of seven major types of metal oxide NPs (Fe2O3, ZnO, CeO2, Fe3O4, Al2O3, CuO, and TiO2) on PCR replication via a low-fidelity DNA polymerase (Ex Taq) and a high-fidelity DNA polymerase (Phusion) were tested. The successfully amplified PCR products were subsequently sequenced using high-throughput amplicon sequencing. Using consistent proportions of NPs and DNA, we found that the effects of NPs on PCR yield differed depending on the DNA polymerase. Specifically, the efficiency of the high-fidelity DNA polymerase (Phusion) was significantly inhibited by NPs during PCR; such inhibition was not evident in reactions with Ex Taq. Amplicon sequencing showed that the overall error rate of NP-amended PCR was not significantly different from that of PCR without NPs (p > 0.05), and NPs did not introduce single nucleotide polymorphisms during PCR. Thus, overall, NPs inhibited PCR amplification in a DNA polymerase-specific manner, but mutations were not introduced in the process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available