Plant Molecular Biology Reporter

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 265–277 | Cite as

High-throughput transgene copy number estimation by competitive PCR

  • Anton S. CallawayEmail author
  • Rita Abranches
  • Jeffery Scroggs
  • George C. Allen
  • William F. Thompson


Transgene copy number affects the level and stability of gene expression. Therefore, it is important to determine the copy number of each transgenic line. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is widely employed to quantify amounts of target sequences. Although PCR is not inherently quantitative, various means of overcoming this limitation have been devised. Recent real-time PCR methods are rapid; however, they typically lack a suitable internal standard, limit the size of the target sequence, and require expensive specialized equipment. Competitive PCR techniques avoid these problems, but traditional competitive methods are time consuming. Here we apply mathematical modeling to create a rapid, simple, and inexpensive copy number determination method that retains the robustness of competitive PCR.

Key words

competitive copy number high throughput PCR quantitative transgenic 



continuous competitive quantitative-polymerase chain reaction


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen GC, Hall GJ, Michalowski S, Newman W, Spiker S, Weissinger AK, and Thompson WF (1996) High-level transgene expression in plant cells: Effects of a strong scaffold attachment region from tobacco. Plant Cell 8: 899–913.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Robaiy S, Rupf S, and Eschrish K (2001) Rapid competitive PCR using melting curve analysis for DNA quantification. BioTech 31: 1382–1388.Google Scholar
  3. Arumuganathan K and Earle ED (1991) Nuclear DNA content of some important plant species. Plant Mol Biol Rep 9: 208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonin AL, Gossen M, and Bujard H (1994)Photinus pyralis luciferase: vectors that contain a modifiedluc coding sequence allowing convenient transfer into other systems. Gene 141: 75–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burden RL and Faires JD (1993) Numerical Analysis, pp. PWS-Kent, Boston.Google Scholar
  6. Callaway AS (1998) A genetic approach to study host factors of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) that influence susceptibility toCauliflower mosaic virus. Ph.D. Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  7. Davis PJ and Polonsky I (1972) Numerical Interpolation, Differentiation, and Integration. In: Abramowitz M and Stegun IA (eds), Handbook of Mathematical Functions, pp 878, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  8. Gatz C, Kaiser A, and Wendenberg R (1991) Regulation of a modified CaMV 35S promoter by the Tn10-encoded Tet repressor in transgenic tobacco. Mol Gen Genet 227: 229–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gatz C, Frohberg C, and Wendenburg R (1992) Stringent repression and homogeneous de-repression by tetracycline of a modified CaMV 35S promoter in intact transgenic tobacco plants. Plant J 2: 397–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gossen M and Bujard H (1992) Tight control of gene expression in mammalian cells by tetracycline-responsive promoters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 5547–5551.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingham DJ, Beer S, Money S, and Hansen G (2001) Quantitative real-time PCR assay for determining transgene copy number in transformed plants. BioTech 31: 132–140.Google Scholar
  12. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, and Bevan MW (1987) GUS fusions: β-glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBO J 6: 3901–3907.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kooter JM, Matzke MA, and Meyer P (1999) Listening to the silent genes: transgene silencing, gene regulation and pathogen control. TIPS 4: 340–347.Google Scholar
  14. Linz U (1990) Thermocycler temperature variation invalidates PCR results. BioTech 9: 286–293.Google Scholar
  15. Livak K, Flood SJA, Marmaro J, Giusti W, and Deetz K (1995) Oligonucleotides with fluorescent dyes at opposite ends provide a quenched probe system useful for detecting PCR product and nucleic acid hybridization. PCR Methods and Applications 4: 357–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludwig W and Schleifer K-H (2000) How quantitative is quantitative PCR with respect to cell counts? System Appl Microbiol 23: 556–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mandel T, Fleming AJ, Kranhenbuhl R, and Kuhlemeier C (1995) Definition of constitutive gene expression in plants: the translation initiation factor 4A gene as a model. Plant Mol Biol 29: 995–1004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piatak MJ, Saag MS, Yang LC, Clark SJ, Kappes JC, Luk K-C, Hahn BH, Shaw GM, and Lifson JD (1993) High levels of HIV-1 in plasma during all stages of infection determined by competitive PCR. Science 259: 1749–1754.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raeymaekers L (2000) Basic principles of quantitative PCR. Mol Biotech 15: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sit TL, Haikal PR, Callaway AS, and Lommel SA (2001) A single amino acid mutation in theCarnation Ringspot Virus capsid protein allows virion formation but prevents systemic infection. J Virol 75: 9538–9542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Souazé F, Ntodou-Thomé A, Tran CY, Rostène W, and Forgez P (1996) Quantitative RT-PCR: Limits and accuracy. BioTech 21: 280–285.Google Scholar
  22. Wang AM, Doyle MV, and Mark DF (1989) Quantitation of mRNA by the polymerase chain reaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86: 9717–9721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zimmermann K and Mannhalter JW (1996) Technical aspects of quantitative competitive PCR. BioTech 21: 268–279.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anton S. Callaway
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rita Abranches
    • 1
  • Jeffery Scroggs
    • 2
  • George C. Allen
    • 1
  • William F. Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleigh

Personalised recommendations