Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms

Abstract Samples used in biomedical research are often collected over years, in some cases from subjects that may have died and thus cannot be retrieved in any way. The value of these samples is priceless. Sample misidentification or mix-up are unfortunately common problems in biomedical research an...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Harshitha Shobha Manjunath, Nicola James, Rebecca Mathew, Muna Al Hashmi, Lee Silcock, Ida Biunno, Pasquale De Blasio, Chidambaram Manickam, Sara Tomei
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/d5afe7eb44ef43e8a31cfe02e1f8403b
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:d5afe7eb44ef43e8a31cfe02e1f8403b
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:d5afe7eb44ef43e8a31cfe02e1f8403b2021-12-02T16:15:06ZHuman sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms10.1038/s41598-021-92978-32045-2322https://doaj.org/article/d5afe7eb44ef43e8a31cfe02e1f8403b2021-07-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92978-3https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract Samples used in biomedical research are often collected over years, in some cases from subjects that may have died and thus cannot be retrieved in any way. The value of these samples is priceless. Sample misidentification or mix-up are unfortunately common problems in biomedical research and can eventually result in the publication of incorrect data. Here we have compared the Fluidigm SNPtrace and the Agena iPLEX Sample ID panels for the authentication of human genomic DNA samples. We have tested 14 pure samples and simulated their cross-contamination at different percentages (2%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50%). For both panels, we report call rate, allele intensity/probability score, performance in distinguishing pure samples and contaminated samples at different percentages, and sex typing. We show that both panels are reliable and efficient methods for sample authentication and we highlight their advantages and disadvantages. We believe that the data provided here is useful for sample authentication especially in biorepositories and core facility settings.Harshitha Shobha ManjunathNicola JamesRebecca MathewMuna Al HashmiLee SilcockIda BiunnoPasquale De BlasioChidambaram ManickamSara TomeiNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-9 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Harshitha Shobha Manjunath Nicola James Rebecca Mathew Muna Al Hashmi Lee Silcock Ida Biunno Pasquale De Blasio Chidambaram Manickam Sara Tomei Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
description	Abstract Samples used in biomedical research are often collected over years, in some cases from subjects that may have died and thus cannot be retrieved in any way. The value of these samples is priceless. Sample misidentification or mix-up are unfortunately common problems in biomedical research and can eventually result in the publication of incorrect data. Here we have compared the Fluidigm SNPtrace and the Agena iPLEX Sample ID panels for the authentication of human genomic DNA samples. We have tested 14 pure samples and simulated their cross-contamination at different percentages (2%, 5%, 10%, 25% and 50%). For both panels, we report call rate, allele intensity/probability score, performance in distinguishing pure samples and contaminated samples at different percentages, and sex typing. We show that both panels are reliable and efficient methods for sample authentication and we highlight their advantages and disadvantages. We believe that the data provided here is useful for sample authentication especially in biorepositories and core facility settings.
format	article
author	Harshitha Shobha Manjunath Nicola James Rebecca Mathew Muna Al Hashmi Lee Silcock Ida Biunno Pasquale De Blasio Chidambaram Manickam Sara Tomei
author_facet	Harshitha Shobha Manjunath Nicola James Rebecca Mathew Muna Al Hashmi Lee Silcock Ida Biunno Pasquale De Blasio Chidambaram Manickam Sara Tomei
author_sort	Harshitha Shobha Manjunath
title	Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
title_short	Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
title_full	Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
title_fullStr	Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
title_full_unstemmed	Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
title_sort	human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/d5afe7eb44ef43e8a31cfe02e1f8403b
work_keys_str_mv	AT harshithashobhamanjunath humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT nicolajames humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT rebeccamathew humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT munaalhashmi humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT leesilcock humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT idabiunno humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT pasqualedeblasio humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT chidambarammanickam humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms AT saratomei humansampleauthenticationinbiomedicalresearchcomparisonoftwoplatforms
_version_	1718384321171030016

Human sample﻿ authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms

Ejemplares similares

Human sample authentication in biomedical research: comparison of two platforms