Table 1.

Genotyping the PPT and FV Genes by ASO Hybridization and Minisequencing on Oligonucleotide Arrays

Probes and primers Ratio between signals from normal and mutant alleles[ii] Power of discrimination between genotypes[iii]
homozygous positions PPT (T/T) FV (G/G) heterozygous positions PPT (T/A) FV (G/A)
ASO[iv] MS[v] ASO[iv] MS[v] ASO[iv] MS[v]
DNA target
PPT15-mer1.81.61.1
20-mer1.0 157 0.84 1.1 1.2 142
FV15-mer114.42.5
20-mer2.4 85 1.4 1.5 1.7 57
RNA target
PPT15-mer 7.4 1.4 5.3
20-mer1.01140.542.31.949
FV15-mer8.0281.2
20-mer 14 49 2.3 5.1 6.1 8

[i] The best results obtained by both methods are highlighted by bold numbers; (—) Not done.

[ii] Mean values of four separate experiments.

[iii] Calculated by dividing the ratio between signals from the normal and mutant alleles obtained at a homozygous position with the corresponding ratio obtained at a heterozygous position.

[iv] Washing conditions of increasing stringency (0.75, 0.15, and additionally 0.03 m NaCl for the RNA hybridizations) were employed for the posthybridization washes at 22°C of the ASO probe arrays. In most cases the best result was obtained at 0.15 mNaCl, but the FV 15-mers performed better at 0.03 m with RNA as template. These results are given here.

[v] (MS) minisequencing. The DyNAseq DNA polymerase was used in the reaction with DNA as template, and the RetroTherm reverse transcriptase was used with RNA as template.