2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2021.114266
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An error prone PCR method for small amplicons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We synthesized all four Alu sequences and cloned them into the Alu jumping vector followed by Sanger sequence validation. We then used an error-prone PCR system that is estimated to generate a mutation every 1-16bp per kilobase (kb) of DNA (see Methods) to generate roughly 1-6 mutations per 300bp Alu element 10,11 . The mutagenized PCR product of each Alu element was then re-cloned into the Alu jumping assay vector to generate four mutagenized libraries: Alu Sx-mut, Alu 6b-mut, Alu 14b-mut and Alu h1.1-mut ( Supplementary Table 1 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We synthesized all four Alu sequences and cloned them into the Alu jumping vector followed by Sanger sequence validation. We then used an error-prone PCR system that is estimated to generate a mutation every 1-16bp per kilobase (kb) of DNA (see Methods) to generate roughly 1-6 mutations per 300bp Alu element 10,11 . The mutagenized PCR product of each Alu element was then re-cloned into the Alu jumping assay vector to generate four mutagenized libraries: Alu Sx-mut, Alu 6b-mut, Alu 14b-mut and Alu h1.1-mut ( Supplementary Table 1 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We found that conventional error-prone PCR methods were ill-suited for achieving the desired mutation density in this small amplicon (1–2 mutations per 36 bp) while also maintaining low levels of bias; hence, we developed a modified error-prone PCR method based on iterating between dilution and reamplification with error-prone touchdown PCR to suppress accumulation of incorrect products. The details of this modified method are reported elsewhere …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The starting point for these mutations was the pBAD-tdTEVDB variant with the trimmed-down context regions (DVFLG deleted from the 5′-exon context and PFNI deleted from the 3′-exon context, see Figure 5 ). The commercial GeneMorph II Random Mutagenesis kit (Agilent) was used to perform epPCR, but using a modified protocol that involved performing several iterations of dilution and reamplification with a touchdown PCR protocol (see ref ( 51 ) for details). The forward and reverse primers SD_lib_insert_F/R ( Table S1 and Figure S10 ) were designed to span the initiation sequence.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Traditionally, this type of construct could be possibly made by regular PCRs (generating the constant fragments) and error-prone PCRs (generating the mutational fragments) followed by some kinds of gene-assembly methods, such as the Golden Gate assembly or yeast homologous recombination , (Figure S15). However, there are several obstacles that render the traditional method impractical, especially for short mutational fragments (such as CDRs ∼10–60 bp): (i) more PCRs required for the traditional method (see Figure S15); (ii) difficulty to generate small amplicons by error-prone PCRs; and (iii) low efficiency by yeast homologous recombination or the Golden Gate assembly, especially for a large number of fragments or small fragments. Therefore, the reverse Kunkel method provides a unique strength for engineering biomolecules whose functions rely on multiple discontinuous short sequences, such as the CDRs in antibodies or alternative affinity scaffolds, the hairpins in aptamers or ribozymes, the hypervariable regions in T cell receptors or AAV capsids, the RuvC domain in Cas9 or Cas12a, and so forth.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%