Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Employing Digital Droplet PCR to Detect BRAF V600E Mutations in Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded Reference Standard Cell Lines
Published on: October 8, 2015
Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and QMC-PCR in conjunction with high resolution melting for KRAS/BRAF mutation
Salih Ibrahem1, Rashmi Seth, Brendan O'Sullivan
1Division of Pathology, School of Molecular Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract:
Mutation detection is important in cancer management. Several methods are available of which high resolution melting (HRM) analysis and pyrosequencing are the most versatile. We undertook a comparative analysis of these techniques. The methods are: To compare the limit of detection (LOD), mutations in KRAS (codon 12/13 hotspot) and BRAF (V600E hotspot) were tested. DNA mixtures containing mutant alleles at a frequency of around 25%/12.5%/6%/3%/ 1.5%/0.8% were analysed. To compare frequency of mutation detection, 22 DNA samples (nine high quality samples from cell lines, 13 low quality samples from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue) were tested for three hotspots in KRAS (codons 12/13, 61 and 146) and two hotspots in BRAF (V600E and exon 11). HRM analysis of KRAS (codon12/13) and BRAF (V600E) showed that 3% and 1.5% mutant alleles respectively could be reliably detected whilst pyrosequencing reliably detected 6% mutant alleles in each case. Of 110 tests performed on 22 DNA samples, in 109 cases HRM and pyrosequencing gave identical results. Two of the samples tested had previously been called as wild type for KRAS by direct Sanger sequencing but were found to be mutant by both HRM and pyrosequencing. Both HRM and pyrosequencing can detect small numbers of mutant alleles although HRM has a lower limit of detection. Both are suitable for use in mutation detection and are both more sensitive than Sanger sequencing.
