title: Effect of probe characteristics on the subtractive hybridization efficiency of human genomic DNA.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The detection sensitivity of low abundance pathogenic species by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be significantly enhanced by removing host nucleic acids. This selective removal can be performed using a magnetic bead-based solid phase with covalently immobilized capture probes. One of the requirements to attain efficient host background nucleic acids subtraction is the capture probe characteristics.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In this study we investigate how various capture probe characteristics influence the subtraction efficiency. While the primary focus of this report is the impact of probe length, we also studied the impact of probe conformation as well as the amount of capture probe attached to the solid phase. The probes were immobilized on magnetic microbeads functionalized with a phosphorous dendrimer. The subtraction efficiency was assessed by quantitative real time PCR using a single-step capture protocol and genomic DNA as target. Our results indicate that short probes (100 to 200 bp) exhibit the best subtraction efficiency. Additionally, higher subtraction efficiencies with these probes were obtained as the amount of probe immobilized on the solid phase decreased. Under optimal probes condition, our protocol showed a 90 - 95% subtraction efficiency of human genomic DNA.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The characteristics of the capture probe are important for the design of efficient solid phases. The length, conformation and abundance of the probes determine the capture efficiency of the solid phase.
authors.affiliation: US Naval Research Laboratory, Center for Bio/Molecular Science & Engineering, 4555 Overlook Avenue, S W, Washington, DC, 20375, USA. marie.archer@nrl.navy.mil.
authors.forename: Marie J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Archer
authors.forename: Nina
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Long
authors.forename: Baochuan
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Lin
references.citation: Biosens Bioelectron. 2006 Jan 15;21(7):989-97
references.pmid: 16368479
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 05;34(11):3370-7
references.pmid: 16822858
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 1996 May;34(5):1209-15
references.pmid: 8727904
references.citation: Anal Chem. 1998 Apr 1;70(7):1288-96
references.pmid: 15779144
references.citation: J Chem Phys. 2004 Mar 8;120(10):4958-68
references.pmid: 15267358
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 2006 Aug 15;355(2):285-97
references.pmid: 16764814
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Dec 15;29(24):5163-8
references.pmid: 11812850
references.citation: Clin Chem. 2007 Sep;53(9):1570-6
references.pmid: 17660271
references.citation: Biophys Chem. 1994 Jun;50(3):255-71
references.pmid: 8011947
references.citation: Biophys J. 2002 Jul;83(1):22-41
references.pmid: 12080098
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 May;68(5):2316-25
references.pmid: 11976103
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 1995 Apr 10;226(2):325-30
references.pmid: 7793635
references.citation: Anal Biochem. 1997 Nov 15;253(2):180-9
references.pmid: 9367501
references.citation: Biophys J. 1995 Dec;69(6):2243-55
references.pmid: 8599632
references.citation: J Med Virol. 2004 Jan;72(1):1-9
references.pmid: 14635004
references.citation: Biochem J. 1991 Sep 15;278 ( Pt 3):735-40
references.pmid: 1898362
references.citation: Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Apr 1;27(7):1719-27
references.pmid: 10076004