↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative and Sensitive Detection of GNAS Mutations Causing McCune-Albright Syndrome with Next Generation Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Quantitative and Sensitive Detection of GNAS Mutations Causing McCune-Albright Syndrome with Next Generation Sequencing
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060525
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satoshi Narumi, Kumihiro Matsuo, Tomohiro Ishii, Yusuke Tanahashi, Tomonobu Hasegawa

Abstract

Somatic activating GNAS mutations cause McCune-Albright syndrome (MAS). Owing to low mutation abundance, mutant-specific enrichment procedures, such as the peptide nucleic acid (PNA) method, are required to detect mutations in peripheral blood. Next generation sequencing (NGS) can analyze millions of PCR amplicons independently, thus it is expected to detect low-abundance GNAS mutations quantitatively. In the present study, we aimed to develop an NGS-based method to detect low-abundance somatic GNAS mutations. PCR amplicons encompassing exons 8 and 9 of GNAS, in which most activating mutations occur, were sequenced on the MiSeq instrument. As expected, our NGS-based method could sequence the GNAS locus with very high read depth (approximately 100,000) and low error rate. A serial dilution study with use of cloned mutant and wildtype DNA samples showed a linear correlation between dilution and measured mutation abundance, indicating the reliability of quantification of the mutation. Using the serially diluted samples, the detection limits of three mutation detection methods (the PNA method, NGS, and combinatory use of PNA and NGS [PNA-NGS]) were determined. The lowest detectable mutation abundance was 1% for the PNA method, 0.03% for NGS and 0.01% for PNA-NGS. Finally, we analyzed 16 MAS patient-derived leukocytic DNA samples with the three methods, and compared the mutation detection rate of them. Mutation detection rate of the PNA method, NGS and PNA-NGS in 16 patient-derived peripheral blood samples were 56%, 63% and 75%, respectively. In conclusion, NGS can detect somatic activating GNAS mutations quantitatively and sensitively from peripheral blood samples. At present, the PNA-NGS method is likely the most sensitive method to detect low-abundance GNAS mutation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 4%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Other 12 26%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Unknown 9 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2013.
All research outputs
#17,683,485
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#146,509
of 193,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,428
of 197,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,666
of 5,373 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,373 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.