There is growing interest in digital PCR (dPCR) because technological progress makes it a practical and increasingly affordable technology. dPCR allows the precise quantification of nucleic acids, facilitating the measurement of small percentage differences and quantification of rare variants. dPCR may also be more reproducible and less susceptible to inhibition than quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Consequently, dPCR has the potential to have a substantial impact on research as well as diagnostic applications. However, as with qPCR, the ability to perform robust meaningful experiments requires careful design and adequate controls. To assist independent evaluation of experimental data, comprehensive disclosure of all relevant experimental details is required. To facilitate this process we present the Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments guidelines. This report addresses known requirements for dPCR that have already been identified during this early stage of its development and commercial implementation. Adoption of these guidelines by the scientific community will help to standardize experimental protocols, maximize efficient utilization of resources, and enhance the impact of this promising new technology.

One of the benefits of Digital PCR (dPCR) is the potential for unparalleled precision enabling smaller fold change measurements. An example of an assessment that could benefit from such improved precision is the measurement of tumour-associated copy number variation (CNV) in the cell free DNA (cfDNA) fraction of patient blood plasma. To investigate the potential precision of dPCR and compare it with the established technique of quantitative PCR (qPCR), we used breast cancer cell lines to investigate HER2 gene amplification and modelled a range of different CNVs. We showed that, with equal experimental replication, dPCR could measure a smaller CNV than qPCR. As dPCR precision is directly dependent upon both the number of replicate measurements and the template concentration, we also developed a method to assist the design of dPCR experiments for measuring CNV. Using an existing model (based on Poisson and binomial distributions) to derive an expression for the variance inherent in dPCR, we produced a power calculation to define the experimental size required to reliably detect a given fold change at a given template concentration. This work will facilitate any future translation of dPCR to key diagnostic applications, such as cancer diagnostics and analysis of cfDNA.

BACKGROUND Digital PCR (dPCR) is an increasingly popular manifestation of PCR that offers a number of unique advantages when applied to preclinical research, particularly when used to detect rare mutations and in the precise quantification of nucleic acids. As is common with many new research methods, the application of dPCR to potential clinical scenarios is also being increasingly described. CONTENT This review addresses some of the factors that need to be considered in the application of dPCR. Compared to real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR), dPCR clearly has the potential to offer more sensitive and considerably more reproducible clinical methods that could lend themselves to diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive tests. But for this to be realized the technology will need to be further developed to reduce cost and simplify application. Concomitantly the preclinical research will need be reported with a comprehensive understanding of the associated errors. dPCR benefits from a far more predictable variance than qPCR but is as susceptible to upstream errors associated with factors like sampling and extraction. dPCR can also suffer systematic bias, particularly leading to underestimation, and internal positive controls are likely to be as important for dPCR as they are for qPCR, especially when reporting the absence of a sequence. SUMMARY In this review we highlight some of the considerations that may be needed when applying dPCR and discuss sources of error. The factors discussed here aim to assist in the translation of dPCR to diagnostic, predictive, or prognostic applications.

The emerging technique of microfluidic digital PCR (dPCR) offers a unique approach to real-time quantitative PCR for measuring nucleic acids that may be particularly suited for low-level detection. In this study, we evaluated the quantitative capabilities of dPCR when measuring small amounts (<200 copies) of DNA and investigated parameters influencing technical performance. We used various DNA templates, matrixes, and assays to evaluate the precision, sensitivity and reproducibility of dPCR, and demonstrate that this technique can be highly reproducible when performed at different times and when different primer sets are targeting the same molecule. dPCR exhibited good analytical sensitivity and was reproducible outside the range recommended by the instrument manufacturer; detecting 16 estimated targets with high precision. The inclusion of carrier had no effect on this estimated quantity, but did improve measurement precision. We report disagreement when using dPCR to measure different template types and when comparing the estimated quantities by dPCR and UV spectrophotometry. Finally, we also demonstrate that preamplification can impose a significant measurement bias. These findings provide an independent assessment of low copy molecular measurement using dPCR and underline important factors for consideration in dPCR experimental design.

Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is becoming an important clinical analyte for prenatal testing, cancer diagnosis and cancer monitoring. The extraction stage is critical in ensuring clinical sensitivity of analytical methods measuring minority nucleic acid fractions, such as foetal-derived sequences in predominantly maternal cfDNA. Consequently, quality controls are required for measurement of extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and yield for validation of cfDNA methods. We evaluated the utility of an external DNA spike for monitoring these parameters in a study comparing three specific cfDNA extraction methods [QIAamp® circulating nucleic acid (CNA) kit, NucleoSpin® Plasma XS (NS) kit and FitAmp™ plasma/serum DNA isolation (FA) kit] with the commonly used QIAamp DNA blood mini (DBM) kit. We found that the extraction efficiencies of the kits ranked in the order CNA kit > DBM kit > NS kit > FA kit, and the CNA and NS kits gave a better representation of smaller DNA fragments in the extract than the DBM kit. We investigated means of improved reporting of cfDNA yield by comparing quantitative PCR measurements of seven different reference gene assays in plasma samples and validating these with digital PCR. We noted that the cfDNA quantities based on measurement of some target genes (e.g. TERT) were, on average, more than twofold higher than those of other assays (e.g. ERV3). We conclude that analysis and averaging of multiple reference genes using a GeNorm approach gives a more reliable estimate of total cfDNA quantity.FigureComparison of single and multiple reference gene normalisation for quantification of plasma cell free DNAElectronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00216-014-7835-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.