Open Access

A novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan PCR‑based method for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma

  • Authors:
    • Yunqing Zhang
    • Shoufang Qu
    • Jinyin Zhao
    • Ting Yu
    • Liping Guo
    • Songchao Yin
    • Xiaoxu Hu
    • Weijun Chen
    • Wei Lai
    • Jie Huang
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: May 30, 2018     https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.8844
  • Pages: 1615-1621
  • Copyright: © Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

To enable the rapid and sensitive screening of the BRAF V600E mutation in clinical samples, a novel method combining restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis with the popular amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) TaqMan quantitative (qPCR) genotyping method in a single reaction tube was developed. A total of 2 primer pairs were designed to enrich for and genotype the BRAF mutational hotspot (RFLP primers and ARMS primers) and a restriction enzyme was used to remove the wild‑type alleles. The analysis revealed that this method detected mutant alleles in mixed samples containing >0.1% mutant sequences. In a survey of 53 melanoma samples, this method detected 21 mutation‑positive samples. This novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan qPCR protocol may prove useful for detecting mutations in clinical samples containing only a small proportion of mutant alleles.

Introduction

BRAF is one of the most frequently mutated protein kinases in human cancer (1,2). BRAF protein kinase has been suggested to be among the most likely protein kinase genes to carry driver mutations (3). BRAF mutations have been identified in the majority of malignant melanomas, and the frequency of BRAF mutations in malignant melanomas is 59% (1). The mutation frequency of BRAF is relatively low in other types of cancer, including papillary thyroid carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma. Research by Davies and his colleagues indicated that the BRAF mutation is a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker in thyroid cancer by analyzing cytological and histological thyroid samples, which occurs specifically and with a high prevalence (35.8%) in papillary thyroid carcinoma, followed by colorectal carcinoma (18%), gliomas (11%), sarcomas (9%), ovarian carcinomas (4%) and lung cancer (3%) (1). Mutations in BRAF have been associated with altered sensitivities to numerous drugs, including PLX4720, Nutlin-3a, AZ628, bortezomib, embelin, RDEA119, FH535, CI-1040, CHIR-99021, AP-24534, obatoclax mesylate, PF-562271, CEP-701, FTI-277, 17-AAG, PD-0325901, SB590885, AZD6244, PD-173074, ZM-447439, BIBW2992, temsirolimus, metformin, AZD6482 and gefitinib (http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cancergenome/projects/cosmic/; visited March 10th, 2014.). The most notable mutational hotspot for BRAF is p.V600E (c.1799T>A), which accounts for ~90% of the known cancer-associated mutations (4).

The BRAF V600E mutation is strongly associated with significantly improved treatment response (57). Therefore, it is considered important to screen for this mutation prior to selecting a therapeutic strategy. However, it has proven challenging to determine the status of this mutation in clinical samples (8,9). A major problem has been that the mutant cells are typically outnumbered by numerous surrounding wild-type cells at the tissue sampling site (8,9). A number of methods have been developed to overcome this problem, including those based on restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis (10,11), matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry analysis (12), ligase chain reaction (13), suspension array (14), amplification refractory mutation system polymerase chain reaction (ARMS PCR) (1519), allele-specific enzymatic amplification (20), mutant-enriched PCR (11,21), pyrosequencing (22), coamplification at lower denaturation temperature PCR (COLD-PCR) (2327), high resolution melting (28,29), fluorescent amplicon generation (30), locked nucleic acid/peptide nucleic acid clamp PCR (31,32), anti-primer quenching-based quantitative (qPCR) (33) and SNaPshot analysis (3436).

Among these techniques, RFLP and ARMS PCR are widely used (37,38). Restriction enzymes specifically digest wild-type alleles, leaving the mutant alleles available for analysis. This approach has been successfully used to detect mutations in tumor protein 53, Ras and epithelial growth factor receptor (11,3941). ARMS PCR is based on the principle that extension is efficient when the 3′ terminal base of a primer matches its target, but inefficient or nonexistent when the 3′ terminal base is mismatched. Therefore, when primers are designed against the mutation of interest, amplification proceeds only if the mutation is present (38). This strategy has been successfully used to screen for point mutations (4244). However, RFLP analysis involves a number of post-PCR processing steps, which may increase the risk for contamination of the PCR product (10,11), and the usefulness of the ARMS method may be limited by inefficient amplification due to the abundance of wild-type alleles (19).

The present study describes a novel method that combines RFLP analysis and ARMS TaqMan qPCR in a one-step reaction tube, and suggests the use of this technique, termed ‘RFPL-ARMS TaqMan PCR,’ to screen clinical melanoma samples for the BRAF V600E mutation.

Materials and methods

Plasmid construction

Recombinants plasmids encoding wild-type and V600E mutant BRAF were constructed as described by Board et al (44). Briefly, corresponding outer and mutant primers were used to yield half fragments with complimentary ends using wild type tissue DNA as a template (first half primer sequences: forward, 5′-CCAGGAGTGCCAAGAGAATA-3′, and reverse, 5′-CCATCGAGATTTCTCTGTAGCTAGACCA-3′; second half primer sequences, forward, 5′-TGGTCTAGCTACAGAGAAATCTCGATGG-3′, and reverse, 5′-TTTCAACAGGGTACACAGAACA-3′), with each half fragment containing a mutant base. PCR was performed in a 50 µl mixture containing 5 µl 10X PCR Buffer (Takara Bio Inc., Otsu, Japan), 1.25 U Takara TaqTM polymerase (Takara Bio Inc.), 4 µl dNTP mixture (Takara Bio Inc.), 0.5 µM primers and 5 µl DNA (Sigma-Aldrich, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The reaction procedure was as follows: Initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles at 95°C for 15 sec, primer annealing at 53°C for 20 sec, and 72°C for 50 sec, final extension took place at 72°C for 5 min. The two half fragment products were mixed equally as a template for the second round PCR. The second round of PCR used inner nested primers (forward, 5′-AGCATCTTCATTCCAATGAAGAGCC-3′, and reverse, 5′-CATCCACAAAATGGATCCAGACAAC-3′. The second round was performed in a 50 µl mixture containing 5 µl 10X PCR Buffer (Takara Bio Inc.), 1.25 U Takara TaqTM polymerase (Takara Bio Inc.), 4 µl dNTP mixture (each 2.5 mM; Takara Bio Inc.,), 0.5 µM primers and 5 µl template. The thermocycling conditions included initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec, 50°C for 30 and 72°C for 50 sec, the final extension took place at 72°C for 5 min. Self-priming of the complementary half fragments and the subsequent amplification created a final product harboring the mutant base. The products were ligated into the pMD19 plasmid (Takara Bio Inc., Otsu, Japan), and recombinants containing mutant alleles were produced and confirmed by sequencing performed by Sangon Biotech Co., Ltd., (Shanghai, China). The sequencing machine used was ABl-PRISM 3,730 (Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) and the analysis software was DNASTAR 5.0 (DNASTAR, Inc., Madison, WI, USA). Recombinant plasmid DNA was extracted using a Tiangen Plasmid DNA kit (Tiangen Biotech Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). As a positive control, the recombinants were mixed with an equal amount of human genomic DNA (Sigma-Aldrich, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany).

Sample collection and DNA extraction

In total, 53 patients with melanoma treated at the Department of Dermatology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University (Guangzhou, China), were enrolled in the present study from March 2011 to December 2012. Unrelated patients diagnosed with melanoma were included. These samples were all biopsies. The median age of patients was 68 years (age range 39-84 years). A total of 33 cases (62%) were females, and 20 cases (38%) were males. A total of 10 patients (19%) exhibited Clark level II disease (penetration of melanoma into the second layer of the skin, the dermis) (45), and 18 patients (34%), 24 patients (45%) and 1 patient (2%) exhibited III, IV and V stage disease, respectively. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. DNA was extracted from 10% formalin-fixed that was fixed at room temperature for 24 h, paraffin-embedded melanoma samples using a QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue kit (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany). Briefly, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks containing the maximum number of tumor-rich areas from the patients were selected and sliced into 3 5-µm thick sections. Each section was processed by proteinase K digestion at 56°C for >16 h, and the obtained lysate was loaded onto a QIAamp column. Following 2 washes, the DNA was eluted with 100 µl ddH2O. The extracted DNA was kept at −20°C until it was used for PCR analysis.

RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR-based genotyping

The RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR assay described in the present study was a one-step PCR that used a mutation-enriching reaction and ARMS primer genotyping process to selectively eliminate wild-type genes and detect the mutant alleles. For the BRAF V600E mutation, a restriction enzyme was used to digest the wild-type genomic DNA, thereby enriching the mutant allele, and then a pair of RFLP primers: Forward, 5′-AGCATCTTCATTCCAATGAAGAGCC-3′; and reverse, 5′-CATCCACAAAATGGATCCAGACAAC-3′, designed to amplify a 400–500 bp fragment containing the mutant allele [melting temperature (Tm), 65°C], were used. The ARMS primers were designed to selectively amplify a mutant allele with a lower Tm (60°C) with the following respective sequences: Forward, 5′-TAGGTGATTTTGGTCTAGCTACACA-3′ (mismatched base is underlined); and reverse, 5′-CCACAAAATGGATCCAGACAAC-3′. To improve the specificity of the ARMS primers, an additional mismatch base was introduced at the penultimate nucleotide of the mutation site (G was replaced by C), based on the principles described by Newton et al (19). Mutant allele enrichment and genotyping were performed in a single tube via a 3-phase reaction: i) 65°C for 30 min, allowing the restriction enzyme, TspRI, to cut the wild-type DNA; ii) enrichment of the mutant allele with the RFLP primers and thermocycling conditions of 95°C for 10 min, followed by 5 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec, 65°C for 20 sec and 72°C for 60 sec; and iii) selective amplification of the mutant allele with the ARMS primers, and 40 cycles of 95°C for 15 sec and 60°C for 35 sec (fluorescence collection). During the second phase, the ARMS primers were unable to bind at the higher temperature (65°C), while in the third phase, the RFLP primers did not function as the 400–500 bp product was incompletely synthesized during the 35 sec elongation phase.

The PCR reaction mixtures contained 12.5 µl TaqMan universal PCR MasterMix (Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), 0.2 µM probe, 0.25 µM primer (each), 3 µl DNA, 5 IU TspRI (New England Biolabs, Inc., Ipswich, MA, USA), and ddH2O to 5 µl. qPCR was performed using an ABI7300 (Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). DNA samples were extracted from all clinical tissue samples using a QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue kit (Qiagen GmbH, Hilden, Germany), and tested using our RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR detection system.

Specificity assay

To determine the specificity of the proposed RFPL-ARMS TaqMan PCR method, reactions were performed with 2–200 ng of wild-type genomic DNA (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA) per reaction and assessed the inefficiency caused by extension from wild-type DNA. An internal control assay was used to assess the total DNA concentration from 2–200 ng in each sample. The forward primer was designed to begin at c.1798G; it amplified wild-type and V600E mutant BRAF using the aforementioned reverse primer and probe. The change in the threshold cycle (ΔCq) [ΔCq=(mutation Cq)-(control Cq)] was defined for each sample. The reactions were performed five times for each DNA concentration, and each reaction was repeated in triplicate to define a cut-off ΔCq value (46).

Assessing the detection limits of RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR

The wild-type and mutant plasmid DNA samples were diluted 10-fold. The effective copy number of plasmids was obtained by comparing the Cq of the diluted samples with that obtained from Human Random Control DNA Panels (Sigma-Aldrich; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) with a known concentration of 100 ng/µl. In a high-quality DNA sample, there was an average of 1 set genomic DNA per 3 pg.

To assess the sensitivity of our assay for the BRAF V600E mutation, it was compared with the ARMS TaqMan PCR protocol without a removed enzyme digestion step. The mutant-encoding plasmid (50,000, 5,000, 500, 50 or 5 copies) was mixed with wild-type genomic DNA (30 ng/µl), corresponding to 80, 8, 0.8, 0.08 and 0.008% mutation rate. For quantification, a standard curve was generated by plotting the Cq cycle numbers against the log of each corresponding DNA copy numbers for the known standards. The linear correlation coefficients (R2) and slopes were calculated using ABI7300 software (v.1.3; Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.).

Genotyping by DNA sequencing

All samples were re-analyzed by PCR sequencing, described as following. Kimura et al (47) previously demonstrated that direct sequencing failed to yield satisfactory results from samples containing mixtures of wild-type and mutant DNA. In the present study, the existing mutation-enriched PCR sequencing method was improved by restriction enzyme selectively cutting wild type alleles and leaving the mutant alleles enriched, increasing the mutation rate. This method was adapted for the detection of the BRAF V600E mutation. This method involved a first PCR amplification step, enzymatic digestion (to remove the wild-type DNA), a second PCR step for mutant enrichment and a final sequencing step. PCR was performed in a total volume of 25 µl containing 12.5 µl 2X Gold Fast PCR mix (Tiangen Biotech Co., Ltd., Beijing, China), 0.4 µM each primer (round 1: forward, 5′-AGCATCTTCATTCCAATGAAGAGCC-3′, and reverse, 5′-CATCCACAAAATGGATCCAGACAAC-3′; round 2: forward, 5′-CATAATGCTTGCTCTGATAGGA-3′, and reverse, 5′-CCACAAAATGGATCCAGACAAC-3′) and 3 µl DNA (for the first round of PCR) or 3 µl digested product (for the second round of PCR). The cycling conditions consisted of 95°C for 10 min, followed by 20 (round 1) or 35 (round 2) cycles of 95°C for 15 sec, 58°C for 20 sec and 72°C for 30 sec, with a final extension at 72°C for 7 min and a final hold at 4°C. Following the first round of PCR, digestion of the wild-type product was performed in a 50 µl volume containing 10 µl first-round PCR product, 5 µl 10X CutSmart Buffer (New England Biolabs, Inc., Ipswich, MA, USA) and 5 IU TspRI (New England Biolabs, Inc.) at 65°C for 30 min. All of the obtained second-round PCR products were sequenced by Sangon Biotech Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). The sequencing machine used was ABl-PRISM 3730 (Applied Biosystems; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.) and the analysis software was DNASTAR (v.5.0; DNASTAR, Inc.).

Statistical analysis

Fisher's exact test was used to compare the sensitivity difference of the two methods (RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR and PCR sequencing) in the detection of clinical samples with V600E mutation rates <5%. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. SPSS for Windows was used (version 23.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Specificity

To assess the specificity of the RFPL-ARMS TaqMan PCR method, RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR was performed using wild-type genomic DNA (2–200 ng/µl). By testing all the wild-type genomic DNA (2–200 ng) cases, the cut-off ΔCq value was determined to be 3 Cq below the lowest ΔCq value observed; the final cut-off ΔCt value was determined to be 14. The ΔCq values were then calculated as the difference between the mutant and control Cq values. If the difference was smaller than the cut-off ΔCt value, the sample was classified as positive (a larger ΔCq reflected the presence of fewer mutant alleles). If the difference was larger than the cut-off point, the sample was classified as mutation-negative or beyond the limits of detection.

Sensitivity

To determine the minimal detection limit of the RFPL-ARMS TaqMan PCR method, a mimic human genomic DNA panel containing the mutant plasmid and normal wild-type human genomic DNA was used. The results revealed that the mutation-enriched PCR sequencing method exhibited increased sensitivity compared with direct PCR sequencing (Fig. 1), and was able to identify mutations making up ~1% of the total genomic DNA content. Furthermore, the RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR assay was demonstrated to be a sensitive and practical method to screen for the BRAF V600E mutation. As indicated in Fig. 2, this RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR method allowed the detection of mutants within mixed samples containing <0.01% of the V600E mutation (corresponding to <10 copies), while 0.8% V600E mutations were detected by ARMS TaqMan PCR, but 0.08 and 0.008% gave no amplification signal (Fig. 3).

Mutation analysis of clinical samples. RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR and PCR sequencing was performed on 53 clinical samples. Among them, 21 samples were identified to be positive for the BRAF V600E mutation by RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR, while only 18 positive samples were identified by PCR sequencing (Table I). The three discordant samples were then analyzed by Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR; QX200, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Hercules, CA, USA). The results indicate that the mutation frequency of the three samples was 3.8, 1.2 and 0.6%, respectively, and the results (3.8, 1.2 and 0.6%) indicate that the samples were positive for the BRAF V600E mutation, which verified the sensitivity of RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR. The result of Fisher's exact test revealed a significant difference between the two methods in detecting low-frequency mutations (<5%). Future experiments will use a larger sample size, which may result in increased statistical significance.

Table I.

Comparison of RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR and PCR sequencing for BRAF V600E mutation detection.

Table I.

Comparison of RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR and PCR sequencing for BRAF V600E mutation detection.

PCR sequencing

RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR+Total
  +18  321
  −  03232
Total183553

[i] RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism; ARMS, amplification refractory mutation system; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; +, positive; -, negative.

Discussion

For mutation detection, direct sequencing is a straightforward and commonly-used method (4850). The present study described a novel mutation-enriched PCR sequencing method and indicated that it was able to detect mutant alleles that represented >10% of the total genomic DNA content. This strategy is therefore more sensitive compared with direct PCR sequencing, which has a lower detection limit of 25–30% (10,51). The mutation-enriched PCR sequencing method of the present study was more practical compared with direct PCR sequencing of clinical samples, as it required fewer steps. It is difficult to obtain homogeneous tumor samples in the clinical setting, and the sequencing reaction may fail due to an excess of wild-type sequences (52). Therefore, it is critical to develop more sensitive genotyping methods.

Furthermore, the present study described a second novel method that combines a modified RFLP analysis and ARMS TaqMan qPCR to screen for the BRAF V600E mutation without any post-PCR processing. In our previous investigations, we found that when we introduced an additional mismatch at the 3′-end, there was a marked decrease (The Cq value increased) in the sensitivity of the ARMS qPCR method (unpublished). In the present study, the RFLP primers were introduced into the ARMS TaqMan qPCR to improve the sensitivity. In contrast to general mutation-enriched PCR, a restriction enzyme was used to digest the wild-type DNA, enhancing the proportion of mutant alleles prior to the PCR amplification step. This protocol has the following advantages: Firstly, the restriction enzyme digestion step enhances the specificity by removing the wild-type genomic DNA and enriching the mutant allele; secondly, the sensitivity was additionally improved by using RFLP primers with a Tm that was higher (by 5°C) compared with that of the ARMS primers, which amplified a longer fragment; thirdly, the digestion and PCR reactions were performed in a single tube, avoiding the requirement for any post-PCR processing and decreasing the risk of PCR product contamination; finally, the RFLP and ARMS PCR steps were independent reactions. Together, these benefits ensure that the RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR assay described in the present is simple to use and amenable to high-throughput operation.

The results also revealed that the RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR assay was able to detect 0.1% mutant alleles in a background of ~20 copies of total genomic DNA. The sensitivity and selectivity were significantly higher compared with those achieved by the existing sequencing-based methods. Using this method, 53 melanoma samples were successfully screened for the BRAF V600E mutation. The RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR method of the present study identified 21 mutation-positive samples. A total of 18 of these samples were identified by direct PCR sequencing, indicating the high potential of the protocol. The mutation frequency of the three discordant samples was analyzed, which verified that the more sensitive qPCR method was able to detect mutations in samples containing only a small proportion of mutant alleles.

In summary, the novel RFLP-ARMS TaqMan PCR protocol described in the present study offers a means to improve the sensitivity and specificity of mutation detection, and may be a promising method for screening mutant alleles in cancer samples that contain relatively few mutant cells.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

The present study was supported by the National High-tech R&D Program of China (863 program; grant no. 2011AA02A115).

Availability of data and materials

All datasets generated or analyzed in the present study are included in this published article.

Authors' contributions

YZ, WL and SCY collected tissue samples and wrote the article. SQ, TY and JH contributed to study design, the majority of the experiments, data analysis and article-writing. JZ, LG, XH and WC participated in the study design, performed the Droplet Digital PCR experiment, data analysis and interpretation and revised the manuscript.

Ethics and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Consent for publication

All the study participants have approved the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

1 

Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, Teague J, Woffendin H, Garnett MJ, Bottomley W, et al: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 417:949–954. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Greenman C, Stephens P, Smith R, Dalgliesh GL, Hunter C, Bignell G, Davies H, Teague J, Butler A, Stevens C, et al: Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature. 446:153–158. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

3 

Garnett MJ and Marais R: Guilty as charged; B-RAF is a human oncogene. Cancer Cell. 6:313–319. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Wan PT, Garnett MJ, Roe SM, Lee S, Niculescu-Duvaz D, Good VM, Jones CM, Marshall CJ, Springer CJ, Barford D, et al: Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF. Cell. 116:855–867. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

5 

Hartsough EJ, Basile KJ and Aplin AE: Beneficial effects of RAF inhibitor in mutant BRAF splice variant-expressing melanoma. Mol Cancer Res. 12:795–802. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Dzienis MR and Atkinson VG: Response rate to vemurafenib in patients with BRAF-positive melanoma brain metastases: A retrospective review. Melanoma Res. 24:349–353. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

7 

Le K, Blomain ES, Rodeck U and Aplin AE: Selective RAF inhibitor impairs ERK1/2 phosphorylation and growth in mutant NRAS, vemurafenib-resistant melanoma cells. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 26:509–517. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

8 

Huang T, Zhuge J and Zhang WW: Sensitive detection of BRAF V600E mutation by Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS)-PCR. Biomark Res. 1:32013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Chen D, Huang JF, Xia H, Duan GJ, Chuai ZR, Yang Z, Fu WL and Huang Q: High-sensitivity PCR method for detecting BRAF V600E mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer using LNA/DNA chimeras to block wild-type alleles. Anal Bioanal Chem. 406:2477–2487. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Zhang X, Zhao Y, Wang M, Yap WS and Chang AY: Detection and comparison of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in cells and fluid of malignant pleural effusion in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 60:175–182. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Asano H, Toyooka S, Tokumo M, Ichimura K, Aoe K, Ito S, Tsukuda K, Ouchida M, Aoe M, Katayama H, et al: Detection of EGFR gene mutation in lung cancer by mutant-enriched polymerase chain reaction assay. Clin Cancer Res. 12:43–48. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

12 

Ikryannikova LN, Afanas'ev MV, Akopian TA, Il'ina EN, Kuz'min AV, Larionova EE, Smirnova TG, Chernousova LN and Govorun VM: Mass-spectrometry based minisequencing method for the rapid detection of drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J Microbiol Methods. 70:395–405. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Turner DJ, Zirvi MA, Barany F, Elenitsas R and Seykora J: Detection of the BRAF V600E mutation in melanocytic lesions using the ligase detection reaction. J Cutan Pathol. 32:334–339. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

14 

Ye Y, Wang D, Su C, Rong T and Guo A: Combined detection of p53, p16, Rb, and EGFR mutations in lung cancer by suspension microarray. Genet Mol Res. 8:1509–1518. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Whitcombe D, Theaker J, Guy SP, Brown T and Little S: Detection of PCR products using self-probing amplicons and fluorescence. Nat Biotechnol. 17:804–807. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Mattarucchi E, Marsoni M, Binelli G, Passi A, Lo Curto F, Pasquali F and Porta G: Different real time PCR approaches for the fine quantification of SNP's alleles in DNA pools: Assays development, characterization and pre-validation. J Biochem Mol Biol. 38:555–562. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

17 

Wolstencroft EC, Hanlon K, Harries LW, Standen GR, Sternberg A and Ellard S: Development of a quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction assay for the detection of the JAK2 V617F mutation. J Mol Diagn. 9:42–46. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Thelwell N, Millington S, Solinas A, Booth J and Brown T: Mode of action and application of Scorpion primers to mutation detection. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:3752–3761. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Newton CR, Graham A, Heptinstall LE, Powell SJ, Summers C, Kalsheker N, Smith JC and Markham AF: Analysis of any point mutation in DNA. The amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS). Nucleic Acids Res. 17:2503–2516. 1989.

20 

Jarry A, Masson D, Cassagnau E, Parois S, Laboisse C and Denis MG: Real-time allele-specific amplification for sensitive detection of the BRAF mutation V600E. Mol Cell Probes. 18:349–352. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

van Es JM, Polak MM, van den Berg FM, Ramsoekh TB, Craanen ME, Hruban RH and Offerhaus GJ: Molecular markers for diagnostic cytology of neoplasms in the head region of the pancreas: Mutation of K-ras and overexpression of the p53 protein product. J Clin Pathol. 48:218–222. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

22 

Tan YH, Liu Y, Eu KW, Ang PW, Li WQ, Salto-Tellez M, Iacopetta B and Soong R: Detection of BRAF V600E mutation by pyrosequencing. Pathology. 40:295–298. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Li J, Wang L, Jänne PA and Makrigiorgos GM: Coamplification at lower denaturation temperature-PCR increases mutation-detection selectivity of TaqMan-based real-time PCR. Clin Chem. 55:748–756. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Li J, Wang L, Mamon H, Kulke MH, Berbeco R and Makrigiorgos GM: Replacing PCR with COLD-PCR enriches variant DNA sequences and redefines the sensitivity of genetic testing. Nat Med. 14:579–584. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Milbury CA, Correll M, Quackenbush J, Rubio R and Makrigiorgos GM: COLD-PCR enrichment of rare cancer mutations prior to targeted amplicon resequencing. Clin Chem. 58:580–589. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Pritchard CC, Akagi L, Reddy PL, Joseph L and Tait JF: COLD-PCR enhanced melting curve analysis improves diagnostic accuracy for KRAS mutations in colorectal carcinoma. BMC Clin Pathol. 10:62010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Zuo Z, Chen SS, Chandra PK, Galbincea JM, Soape M, Doan S, Barkoh BA, Koeppen H, Medeiros LJ and Luthra R: Application of COLD-PCR for improved detection of KRAS mutations in clinical samples. Mod Pathol. 22:1023–1031. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Montgomery J, Wittwer CT, Palais R and Zhou L: Simultaneous mutation scanning and genotyping by high-resolution DNA melting analysis. Nat Protoc. 2:59–66. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

29 

Zhou L, Wang L, Palais R, Pryor R and Wittwer CT: High-resolution DNA melting analysis for simultaneous mutation scanning and genotyping in solution. Clin Chem. 51:1770–1777. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Amicarelli G, Shehi E, Makrigiorgos GM and Adlerstein D: FLAG assay as a novel method for real-time signal generation during PCR: Application to detection and genotyping of KRAS codon 12 mutations. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:e1312007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

31 

Efrati E, Elkin H, Peerless Y, Sabo E, Ben-Izhak O and Hershkovitz D: LNA-based PCR clamping enrichment assay for the identification of KRAS mutations. Cancer Biomark. 8:89–94. 2010-2011. View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Kobunai T, Watanabe T, Yamamoto Y and Eshima K: The frequency of KRAS mutation detection in human colon carcinoma is influenced by the sensitivity of assay methodology: A comparison between direct sequencing and real-time PCR. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 395:158–162. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

33 

Li J, Wang F, Mamon H, Kulke MH, Harris L, Maher E, Wang L and Makrigiorgos GM: Antiprimer quenching-based real-time PCR and its application to the analysis of clinical cancer samples. Clin Chem. 52:624–633. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

34 

Fariña Sarasqueta A, Moerland E, de Bruyne H, de Graaf H, Vrancken T, van Lijnschoten G and van den Brule AJ: SNaPshot and StripAssay as valuable alternatives to direct sequencing for KRAS mutation detection in colon cancer routine diagnostics. J Mol Diagn. 13:199–205. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

35 

Magnin S, Viel E, Baraquin A, Valmary-Degano S, Kantelip B, Pretet JL, Mougin C, Bigand M, Girardo B, Borg C and Ferrand C: A multiplex SNaPshot assay as a rapid method for detecting KRAS and BRAF mutations in advanced colorectal cancers. J Mol Diagn. 13:485–492. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

36 

Zinsky R, Bölükbas S, Bartsch H, Schirren J and Fisseler-Eckhoff A: Analysis of KRAS mutations of exon 2 Codons 12 and 13 by SNaPshot analysis in comparison to common DNA sequencing. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2010:7893632010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Grau O and Griffais R: Diagnosis of mutations by the PCR double RFLP method (PCR-dRFLP). Nucleic Acids Res. 22:5773–5774. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

38 

Newton CR, Graham A, Heptinstall LE, Powell SJ, Summers C, Kalshekerl N, Smith JC and Markham AF: Analysis of any point mutation in DNA. The amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS). Nucleic Acids Res. 17:2503–2516. 1989.

39 

Toyooka S, Tsukuda K, Ouchida M, Tanino M, Inaki Y, Kobayashi K, Yano M, Soh J, Kobatake T, Shimizu N and Shimizu K: Detection of codon 61 point mutations of the K-ras gene in lung and colorectal cancers by enriched PCR. Oncol Rep. 10:1455–1459. 2003.PubMed/NCBI

40 

Behn M, Qun S, Pankow W, Havemann K and Schuermann M: Frequent detection of ras and p53 mutations in brush cytology samples from lung cancer patients by a restriction fragment length polymorphism-based ‘enriched PCR’ technique. Clin Cancer Res. 4:361–371. 1998.PubMed/NCBI

41 

Behn M and Schuermann M: Sensitive detection of p53 gene mutations by a ‘mutant enriched’ PCR-SSCP technique. Nucleic Acids Res. 26:1356–1358. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

42 

Scobie GA, Ho ST, Dolan G and Kalsheker NA: Development of a rapid DNA screening procedure for the Factor V Leiden mutation. Clin Mol Pathol. 49:M361–M363. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Bai RK and Wong LJ: Detection and quantification of heteroplasmic mutant mitochondrial DNA by real-time amplification refractory mutation system quantitative PCR analysis: A single-step approach. Clin Chem. 50:996–1001. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Board RE, Thelwell NJ, Ravetto PF, Little S, Ranson M, Dive C, Hughes A and Whitcombe D: Multiplexed assays for detection of mutations in PIK3CA. Clin Chem. 54:757–760. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

45 

Marghoob AA, Koenig K, Bittencourt FV, Kopf AW and Bart RS: Breslow thickness and clark level in melanoma: Uupport for including level in pathology reports and in American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging. Cancer. 88:589–595. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

46 

Livak KJ and Schmittgen TD: Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods. 25:402–408. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

47 

Kimura H, Kasahara K, Kawaishi M, Kunitoh H, Tamura T, Holloway B and Nishio K: Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in serum as a predictor of the response to gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 12:3915–3921. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

48 

Kalikaki A, Koutsopoulos A, Hatzidaki D, Trypaki M, Kontopodis E, Stathopoulos E, Mavroudis D, Georgoulias V and Voutsina A: Clinical outcome of patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving front-line chemotherapy according to EGFR and K-RAS mutation status. Lung Cancer. 69:110–115. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

49 

Uruga H, Kishi K, Fujii T, Beika Y, Enomoto T, Takaya H, Miyamoto A, Morokawa N, Kurosaki A and Yoshimura K: Efficacy of gefitinib for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer harboring epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations: A retrospective analysis. Intern Med. 49:103–107. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

50 

Tamura K, Okamoto I, Kashii T, Negoro S, Hirashima T, Kudoh S, Ichinose Y, Ebi N, Shibata K, Nishimura T, et al: Multicentre prospective phase II trial of gefitinib for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: Results of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group trial (WJTOG0403). Br J Cancer. 98:907–914. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

51 

Endo K, Konishi A, Sasaki H, Takada M, Tanaka H, Okumura M, Kawahara M, Sugiura H, Kuwabara Y, Fukai I, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation in non-small cell lung cancer using highly sensitive and fast TaqMan PCR assay. Lung Cancer. 50:375–384. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

52 

Zhao J, Xie F, Zhong W, Wu W, Qu S, Gao S, Liu L, Zhao J, Wang M, Zhou J, et al: Restriction endonuclease-mediated real-time digestion-PCR for somatic mutation detection. Int J Cancer. 132:2858–2866. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2018
Volume 16 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1792-1074
Online ISSN:1792-1082

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zhang Y, Qu S, Zhao J, Yu T, Guo L, Yin S, Hu X, Chen W, Lai W, Huang J, Huang J, et al: A novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan PCR‑based method for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma. Oncol Lett 16: 1615-1621, 2018.
APA
Zhang, Y., Qu, S., Zhao, J., Yu, T., Guo, L., Yin, S. ... Huang, J. (2018). A novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan PCR‑based method for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma. Oncology Letters, 16, 1615-1621. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.8844
MLA
Zhang, Y., Qu, S., Zhao, J., Yu, T., Guo, L., Yin, S., Hu, X., Chen, W., Lai, W., Huang, J."A novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan PCR‑based method for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma". Oncology Letters 16.2 (2018): 1615-1621.
Chicago
Zhang, Y., Qu, S., Zhao, J., Yu, T., Guo, L., Yin, S., Hu, X., Chen, W., Lai, W., Huang, J."A novel RFLP‑ARMS TaqMan PCR‑based method for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma". Oncology Letters 16, no. 2 (2018): 1615-1621. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.8844