Assessing reliability and accuracy of qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR for estimating mitochondrial DNA copy number in songbird blood and sperm cells

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number varies across species, individuals, and cell types. In birds, there are two types of cells with a relatively low number of mitochondria: red blood cells and spermatozoa. Previous studies investigating variation of mitochondrial abundance in animal sperm have generally used quantitative PCR (qPCR), but this method shows potential limitations when quantifying targets at low abundance. To mitigate such issues, we investigated and compared the reliability and accuracy of qPCR, digital PCR (dPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to quantify high and low concentration DNA. We used synthetic DNA targets, to calculate the limit of detection and the limit of quantification and found that with both dPCR and ddPCR, these limits were lower than with qPCR. Then, to compare quantification accuracy and repeatability, we used DNA extracted from blood and sperm cells of Eurasian siskin. We found that qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR all reliably quantified mitochondrial DNA in sperm samples but showed significant differences when analyzing the typically lower levels of mtDNA in blood, with ddPCR consistently showing lower variation among replicates. Our study provides critical insights and recommendations for future studies aiming to quantify target mtDNA and indicates that dPCR and ddPCR are the preferred methods when working with samples with low abundance of mtDNA.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PeerJ
Published
2025-04-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19278
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
6.94

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing reliability and accuracy of qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR for estimating mitochondrial DNA copy number in songbird blood and sperm cells

Quentin Mauvisseau, Jan Terje Lifjeld, Arild Johnsen, Erica H. Leder et al.
3 citations
PeerJ
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
6.94
article

Assessing reliability and accuracy of qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR for estimating mitochondrial DNA copy number in songbird blood and sperm cells

Quentin Mauvisseau, Jan Terje Lifjeld, Arild Johnsen, Erica H. Leder, Laima Bagdonaitė
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number varies across species, individuals, and cell types. In birds, there are two types of cells with a relatively low number of mitochondria: red blood cells and spermatozoa. Previous studies investigating variation of mitochondrial abundance in animal sperm have generally used quantitative PCR (qPCR), but this method shows potential limitations when quantifying targets at low abundance. To mitigate such issues, we investigated and compared the reliability and accuracy of qPCR, digital PCR (dPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to quantify high and low concentration DNA. We used synthetic DNA targets, to calculate the limit of detection and the limit of quantification and found that with both dPCR and ddPCR, these limits were lower than with qPCR. Then, to compare quantification accuracy and repeatability, we used DNA extracted from blood and sperm cells of Eurasian siskin. We found that qPCR, dPCR and ddPCR all reliably quantified mitochondrial DNA in sperm samples but showed significant differences when analyzing the typically lower levels of mtDNA in blood, with ddPCR consistently showing lower variation among replicates. Our study provides critical insights and recommendations for future studies aiming to quantify target mtDNA and indicates that dPCR and ddPCR are the preferred methods when working with samples with low abundance of mtDNA.

PeerJVol. 13
University of Turku (FI), University of Oslo (NO), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Universitetet i Oslo, Norges Forskningsråd
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Fish Ecology and Management Studies
6.94
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.