4.7 Article

Detection of heteroplasmy in individual mitochondrial particles

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 397, 期 8, 页码 3397-3407

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-3751-3

关键词

Mitochondria; Heteroplasmy; Mitochondrial DNA; Fluorescence; PCR; Deletion; Nucleoid

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R03-AG18099, R01-AG20866, T32-GM08700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations have been associated with disease and aging. Since each cell has thousands of mtDNA copies, clustered into nucleoids of five to ten mtDNA molecules each, determining the effects of a given mtDNA mutation and their connection with disease phenotype is not straightforward. It has been postulated that heteroplasmy (coexistence of mutated and wild-type DNA) follows simple probability rules dictated by the random distribution of mtDNA molecules at the nucleoid level. This model has been used to explain how mutation levels correlate with the onset of disease phenotype and loss of cellular function. Nonetheless, experimental evidence of heteroplasmy at the nucleoid level is scarce. Here, we report a new method to determine heteroplasmy of individual mitochondrial particles containing one or more nucleoids. The method uses capillary cytometry with laser-induced fluorescence detection to detect individual mitochondrial particles stained with PicoGreen, which makes it possible to quantify the mtDNA copy number of each particle. After detection, one or more particles are collected into polymerase chain reaction (PCR) wells and then subjected to real-time multiplexed PCR amplification. This PCR strategy is suitable to obtain the relative abundance of mutated and wild-type mtDNA. The results obtained here indicate that individual mitochondrial particles and nucleoids contained within these particles are not heteroplasmic. The results presented here suggest that current models of mtDNA segregation and distribution (i.e., heteroplasmic nucleoids) need further consideration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据