English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been suggested that detection of aberrant DNA methylation in clinical specimens such as sputum or saliva may be a valuable tumour biomarker. Any clinically applicable detection technique must combine high sensitivity with high specificity. In this study we describe methylation enrichment pyrosequencing (MEP), which benefits from the high sensitivity and specificity of methylation-specific PCR (MSP) but has a second, confirmatory, pyrosequencing step. The pyrosequencing reaction is rapid, relatively inexpensive and offers significant logistical advantages over previously described validation methods. As proof of principle, we illustrate MEP using assays of p16 and cyclin A1 promoters in a methylated DNA dilution matrix and also in a clinical setting using paired saliva and oral tumour specimens. Our results confirm that mis-priming of MSP, with subsequent false positive results, can occur frequently (perhaps 10%) in assays combining high numbers of PCR cycles and low concentrations of starting DNA. In our clinical example, MEP of saliva-derived DNA was more sensitive than standard non-methylation-specific pyrosequencing as illustrated using p16 and cyclin A1 promoter methylation assays.

Methylation enrichment pyrosequencing: combining the specificity of MSP with validation by pyrosequencing