throbber
Q-DI 1993 Oxford University Press
`
`Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 5 1061-1066
`
`High-resolution liquid chromatography of DNA fragments
`on non-porous poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) particles
`
`Christian G.Huber, Peter J.Oefner1, Eugen Preuss2 and Gunther K.Bonn1
`Institute of Radiochemistry, Leopold-Franzens-University, Innrain 52a, A-6020 Innsbruck, 1Department
`of Analytical Chemistry, Johannes-Kepler-University, Altenbergerstrafle 69, A-4040 Linz and
`2Institute of Medicinal Chemistry and Biochemistry, Leopold-Franzens-University, Fritz-Pregl-StraBe 3,
`A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
`
`Received January 11, 1993; Accepted February 2, 1993
`
`ABSTRACT
`DNA restriction fragments and PCR products were
`separated by means of ion-pair reversed-phase high-
`performance liquid chromatography on alkylated non-
`porous poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) particles with a
`mean diameter of 2.1 Am. Optimum resolution was
`obtained by using an acetonitrile gradient in 100 mM
`of triethylammonium acetate and a column temperature
`of 50 OC. This allowed the separation of DNA fragments
`differing in chain length by 1 - 5% up to a size of 500
`base pairs. PCR products could be analyzed directly
`in less than two minutes with a concentration
`sensitivity of at least 300 ng/ml. Compared with anion-
`exchange chromatography or gel electrophoresis no
`desaltation of the purified DNA molecules is required
`because the volatile buffer system can be readily
`evaporated. Subsequently, the method was used for
`the semiquantitative evaluation of the expression of
`multidrug resistance genes in mononuclear white blood
`cells.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Restriction enzyme mapping and polymerase chain reaction have
`gained tremendous popularity in molecular biology and clinical
`diagnostics. The standard method for the separation of DNA
`fragments is electrophoresis in polyacrylamide and agarose gels
`Despite
`(1).
`impressive advances, however, modern
`electrophoresis is still, for the most part, a collection of manually
`intensive methodologies that cannot be run unattended and that
`are prone to irreproducibility and poor quantitative accuracy.
`The recent introduction of fused silica capillaries as the
`migration channel in electrophoresis has been a big step forward
`in putting electrophoretic separations on the same instrumental
`footing as high-performance liquid chromatography (2, 3). With
`regard to the separation of double-stranded DNA fragments, three
`different approaches have been reported. The first one is based
`on the use of low- or zero-crosslinked polyacrylamide-filled
`capillaries, which allowed the realization of up to five million
`theoretical plates per meter and, hence, the resolution of DNA
`
`fragments that differed by less than 10 base pairs, if their overall
`length was not larger than approximately 500 base pairs (4, 5).
`However, gel-filled capillaries are difficult to prepare and, due
`to the destruction of the gel matrix at high current densities,
`resolving power cannot be maintained for long periods of time.
`Moreover, it is not possible to deliver the same amount of each
`DNA species, because samples can only be injected
`electrokinetically. Therefore, several investigators have explored
`the feasibility of separating DNA fragments in free solution using
`micellar buffer systems containing
`cetyltrimethyl-
`either
`ammonium bromide (6) or sodium dodecyl sulfate (7). However,
`this approach does not yield the same degree of resolution as
`obtained by means of gel-filled capillaries. Finally, the combined
`use of hydroxyethylcellulose and ethidium bromide was found
`to offer both the same resolution as seen with gel-filled capillaries
`as well as the advantage of hydrostatic injection (8).
`However, all capillary electrophoretic approaches to the
`analysis of DNA restriction fragments and,
`especially,
`polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products require their
`desaltation because otherwise the salts will cause considerable
`band broadening due to the conductivity difference between the
`sample zone and the surrounding buffer. In this respect, liquid
`chromatographic techniques are far less affected. The method
`most commonly used for the separation of DNA molecules is
`anion-exchange chromatography. The earliest attempts were
`carried out on columns filled with polychlorotrifluoroethylene
`powder coated with a trialkylmethylammonium chloride (9-11).
`However, insufficient
`coating
`of the
`matrix with
`trialkylmethylammonium chloride resulted in considerable loss
`of DNA. The subsequently introduced porous anion-exchange
`supports Mono Q and Mono P allowed the separation of DNA
`restriction fragments within a wide range of size, but resolution
`of fragments larger than 200 base pairs generally declined rapidly
`and separations of DNA molecules up to a length of 500 base
`pairs took almost four hours (12). A considerable reduction in
`time of analysis to less than 15 minutes as well as a significant
`enhancement in resolution was achieved by the introduction of
`non-porous particles to which diethylaminoethyl groups had been
`bonded chemically (13, 14). However, retention behaviour was
`
`MTX1063
`ModernaTX, Inc. v. CureVac AG
`IPR2017-02194
`
`1
`
`

`

`1062 Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. S
`
`not found to be a direct function of chain length and, secondly,
`the isolated DNA fragments were eluted in a salt gradient which
`had to be removed before the DNA molecules could be employed
`in subsequent experiments such as DNA sequencing.
`liquid
`high-performance
`reversed-phase
`Ion-pair
`chromatography (IP-RP-HPLC) is a well-established technique
`for separating mono- and oligonucleotides (15- 18). The principal
`feasibility of separating DNA restriction fragments by means of
`IP-RP-HPLC on uncoated polychlorotrifluoroethylene powder
`has been demonstrated as early as 1979 (19), but attempts to
`transfer the results to commercial packing materials were not
`successful till 1986, when Eriksson et al. (20) published the
`separation of DNA molecules on a PepRPC (C2/C18) column,
`the packing of which is based on porous silica. However,
`complete separation of restriction fragments up to a size of 600
`base pairs took more than 3 hours, which makes the method
`impractical for both analytical as well as preparative purposes.
`Nevertheless, both studies confirmed that separation of restriction
`fragments in IP-RP-HPLC depends mainly on the chain length.
`Based on recent advances in the synthesis of non-porous
`styrene-divinylbenzene copolymers and their application to the
`rapid analysis of proteins (21) and in combination with an ion-
`pairing reagent to the separation of oligonucleotides (17, 18),
`we now explore the applicability of non-porous alkylated
`poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) particles (PS-DVB) to the separation
`of DNA restriction fragments and PCR products.
`
`MATERIALS AND METHODS
`Chemicals
`Styrene, divinylbenzene (DVB), polyvinylalcohol (PVA), and
`1-chlorooctadecane were purchased from Riedel-de Haen (Seelze,
`FRG). HPLC gradient-grade acetonitrile and methanol as well
`as tetrahydrofurane and aluminium chloride were obtained from
`Merck (Darmstadt, FRG). Buffers were prepared using a stock
`solution of 2 M HPLC-grade triethylammoniumacetate (TEAA,
`Applied Biosystems, San Jose, CA, USA) and high-purity water
`(Epure, Barnstead Co., Newton, MA, USA). Acrylamide, Tris,
`acid, and EDTA were purchased from Bio-Rad
`boric
`Laboratories (Richmond, CA, USA).
`
`DNA size standards
`Size standards of double-stranded DNA were purchased from
`Boehringer Mannheim (pBR322 DNA-HaeIl digest, Mannheim,
`FRG) and USB (¢DX-174 DNA-Hincd
`digest, United States
`Biochemical, Cleveland, OH, USA).
`
`Isolation of blood cells
`Peripheral venous blood from controls and patients suffering from
`B-CLL was collected in 10-ml tubes containing heparin as
`anticoagulant. Mononuclear cells were isolated by density
`gradient centrifugation (Lymphoprep, Nycomed AS, Oslo,
`Norway). After removing these cells from the plasma-Ficoll
`interface, they were washed three times with MOPS (DMEM
`buffered with 25 mM 3-N-morpholinopropanesulfonic acid).
`
`RNA isolation and reverse transcription
`Following two washes with ice-cold phosphate buffered saline,
`total RNA was isolated from mononuclear cells by the guanidine
`thiocyanate-acid phenol extraction method (22). Subsequently,
`first-strand synthesis of cDNA was accomplished in a 0.6 mL
`Eppendorf tube by adding 500 ng of RNA to a total volume of
`
`50 ,uL of 50 mM Tris HCl, pH 8.3, 50 mM KCl, 8 mM
`MgCl2, 5 Ag BSA (Pharmacia, Uppsala, Sweden), 1 mM of
`each dNTP, 250 pmol random hexanucleotide primers, 20 mM
`g-mercaptoethanol, 1.25 U rRNasin®
`ribonuclease inhibitor
`(Cat. No. N251 1, Promega, Madison, WI, USA), and 120 U
`M-MLV reverse transcriptase (M5301, Promega). The reaction
`was carried out at 37 °C for 1 hour and then stopped by boiling
`the sample for 2 min and cooling it on ice afterward.
`Polymerase chain reaction
`PCR was performed in a 0.6 mL Eppendorf tube by adding 2
`AL of cDNA or 20 ng of total RNA to a total volume of 50 yIL
`of 10 mM Tris.HCl, pH 9.0, 50 mM KCl, 1.5mM MgCl2, 0.2
`mM of each dNTP, 0.1 mg/ml gelatin, 0.1 % Triton X-100, 0.5
`,uM of each primer, and 3 U TaqDNA Polymerase (Cat. No.
`M1861, Promega). The sequences of the primers used for the
`amplification of 02-microglobulin (5 'I-ACCCCCACTG-
`AAAAAGATGA and 5'I-ATCTTCAAACCTCCATGATG) as
`1
`multidrug
`resistance (MDR) gene
`the
`well
`as
`(5'-CCCATCATTGCAATAGCAGG and 5'-GTTCAAACTT-
`CTGCTCCTGA) were exactly as described by Noonan et al.
`(23). Together with the primers used for the amplification of
`MDR-3, which were MDR-3/2061, 5'-TGTCAGAAGAGCC-
`TTGATGTGG, and MDR-3/2193, 5 '-TGGCAATGGCACATA-
`CTGTTCC, respectively, they were synthesized on an automated
`DNA Synthesizer (Model 381 A, Applied Biosystems, San Jose,
`CA, USA) using phosphoramidite chemistry and purified by
`means of oligonucleotide purification cartridges (Cat. No.
`400771, Applied Biosystems). Thirty cycles of amplification were
`carried out in a thermocycler (MJ Research Inc., MA, USA)
`with a 94°C denaturation step for 35 s, a 57°C annealing step
`for 30 s, and a 73°C extension step for 60 s. Beginning at cycle
`16 each following DNA synthesis step was elongated for 5 s.
`Finally, samples were cooled to room temperature.
`Purification of PCR products
`In order to obtain a standard for the construction of a calibration
`curve several PCR samples containing a 404-bp product were
`pooled an purified by means of size-exclusion chromatography,
`for which prepacked Bio-Spin 30 (Bio-Rad Laboratories,
`Hercules, CA, USA) columns were used. The columns were
`washed three times with TE buffer, before 60 AL of PCR sample
`were applied to the top of the gel bed. The column was
`centrifuged in a swinging bucket at 110xg for 4 min. This
`procedure was repeated two times with 80 AL of TE buffer. The
`eluted DNA was then precipitated with 0.1 volume of 3 M sodium
`acetate, pH 5.0, and 1 volume of isopropanol, stored at -20
`°C overnight, and centrifuged at 15000 x g for 30 min. The
`supernatant was discarded and the pellet was rinsed with 75%
`ethanol, dried under vacuum and usually resupended in 22 ,tL
`of TE buffer prior to analysis both by means of spectrophotometry
`Perkin Elmer,
`(Lambda 2 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer,
`Uberlingen, FRG), in order to determine the content of purified
`as by high-performance liquid
`well
`PCR product,
`as
`chromatography.
`High-performance liquid chromatography
`The HPLC system consisted of a high-precision pump (Model
`480 GT, Gynkotek, Germering, FRG), a degasser (Liliput,
`Gynkotek), a column oven (Model STH 585, Gynkotek), a
`variable wavelength UV-monitor (Model UVD-160, Gynkotek),
`a biocompatible sample injection valve (Model 9125, Rheodyne
`Inc., Cotati, CA, USA) with a 10-,tl sample loop, and a PC-
`based data system (GynkoSoft, Version 3.12, Gynkotek).
`
`2
`
`

`

`PS-DVB beads were prepared by a two-step microsuspension
`method (17, 24). Subsequently, part of the material was alkylated
`under Friedel -Crafts conditions (Austrian patent filed, No.
`2285/92). Depending on the dimensions of the stainless steel
`column used for packing, either 0.6 g (30 x4.6 mm I.D.) or 1.1
`g (5Ox4.6 mm I.D.) of the modified beads were suspended in
`tetrahydrofurane. Then the slurry was sonicated and packed into
`the column at a pressure of 70 MPa with the use of an air-driven
`pump (Model Maximator MSF 111, Ammann Technik, Kolliken,
`CH) and methanol as the driving solvent. Thereafter, methanol
`was replaced with water at the same inlet pressure.
`Gradient profiles are given on each chromatogram. The
`aqueous buffer was 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0, throughout the study.
`In order to keep the concentration of TEAA constant and not
`to be affected by volume contraction during mixing of organic
`solvents with water, the mobile phase was prepared as follows:
`for a 25 % solution of acetonitrile in 0.1 M TEAA, 50 ml of the
`2 M TEAA stock solution were added to 250 ml of acetonitrile
`in a 1000 ml volumetric flask and the final volume was made
`up to 1000 ml by the addition of water.
`Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis
`Ten /tL of each PCR sample or chromatographically isolated
`DNA restriction fragment were separated in 10% polyacrylamide
`gels in TBE buffer (90 mM Tris-borate, 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.3).
`Separations were carried out in a small vertical Mini-Protean II
`electrophoresis cell (Bio-Rad Laboratories) at a constant voltage
`of 80 V for 90 min. Subsequently, the gels were stained in a
`solution of 0.5 ,ug/mL ethidium bromide in TBE buffer for 25
`min and photographed.
`
`RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
`Characterization of the stationary phase
`Because of their uniform size (2.1 0.12 itm, N =257), no
`sieving of the unmodified non-porous PS-DVB particles was
`required following their synthesis. Both the narrow size
`distribution as well as the non-porosity of the particles allow a
`minimization of the length of diffusion paths. This yields both
`an optimum of resolution as well as a significant reduction in
`time of analysis compared to a porous stationary phase (20).
`Another major advantage of the non-porous PS-DVB adsorbent
`is that the totally organic polymer is operable over a wide pH-
`range, typically 1-13, without any damage occurring to the
`packing. This results in high column life-time and allows the easy
`regeneration of a deteriorated column with aqueous sodium
`hydroxide or organic solvents. As seen in Figure la, dsDNA
`restriction fragments larger than approximately 100 base pairs
`in length could not be resolved sufficiently on unmodified PS-
`DVB particles. As in the case of oligonucleotides (18), an
`improvement in resolving power was obtained upon incorporation
`of polyvinyl alcohol during polymerisation (Fig. lb). An even
`higher degree of resolution, which even allowed the efficient
`separation of dsDNA fragments larger than 200 base pairs in size,
`was achieved by alkylating the PS-DVB particles with octadecyl
`groups (Fig. Ic). This is a consequence of the effective shielding
`of the aromatic rings of the PS-DVB matrix which otherwise
`unwantedly interact with the nucleobases that represent the
`hydrophobic moieties of the amphiphilic polynucleotides.
`Optinization of the chromatographic conditions
`Figure 2 shows, that the resolution of DNA restriction fragments
`increases with increasing concentration of TEAA in the mobile
`
`Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 5 1063
`
`A
`
`0.002 AU
`I
`
`I11
`
`^ AA
`
`Figure 1. Comparison of uncoated (a) and chemically modified (b,c) PS-DVB
`particles in the analysis of DNA restriction fragments. Columns: (a) PS-DVB,
`(b) PS-DVB-PVA and (c) PS-DVB-C18, 2.1 /Am, 30x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile
`phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0; linear gradient from 7.5-13.75% acetonitrile in
`4 min, followed by 13.75-16.25% acetonitrile in 6 min; flow-rate: 1 ml/min;
`temperatre: 50 °C; detection: UV, 254 nm; sample: pBR322 DNA-HaeIII digest,
`0.5 Ag.
`
`6I % acetonitrile
`14A
`14.'
`3.
`
`11.!
`
`81
`
`~
`
`70- ~
`
`~
`
`0
`
`0m
`
`0 0m
`
`T---am *
`I
`
`0
`
`100
`
`200
`
`m --nn
`
`500 600
`
`300
`400
`base pairs
`
`FIgure 2. Effect of the concentration of TEAA in the eluant on the chromatographic
`separation of DNA restriction fragments. Column: PS-DVB-C18, 2.1 Am,
`30x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: (a) 0.025 M, (b) 0.05 M, (c) 0.075 M, (d)
`0.1 M, and (e) 0.125 M TEAA, respectively, pH 7.0; linear gradient from
`7.5-13.75% acetonitrile in 4 min, followed by 13.75-16.25% acetonitrile in
`6 min; flow-rate: 1 ml/min; temperature: 50 °C; detection: UV, 254 nm; sample:
`pBR322 DNA-HaeHI digest, 0.5 jig.
`
`phase. This is especially true for fragments larger than 300 base
`pairs in length. In this connexion, it is important to understand
`the principal mechanisms involved in IP-RP-HPLC (15). Firstly,
`the retention sequence is controlled by the charge of the
`polynucleotides, thus determining the number of ion pairs formed.
`This enables IP-RP-HPLC to separate polydeoxynucleotides
`reliably according to their chain length, largely irrespective of
`their base composition (19, 25). Secondly, the degree of retention
`is directly proportional to the chain length of the n-alkyl group
`of the ion pairing reagent. However, triethylammonium acetate
`
`3
`
`

`

`7S r__--.
`I~/I~~
`,
`
`392/495 --770_1057
`I--- 162M20
`-.-
`1
`.2
`.4
`.6
`.8
`1.2
`flow rate [ml/min]
`
`Rs
`
`6 5
`
`-
`
`4-
`
`3 2 1
`
`. 0
`
`Figure 5. Effect of eluant flow-rate on the resolution of selected pairs of DNA
`restriction fragments from the pBR322 DNA-HaeIl digest. Column: PS-DVB-
`C18, 2.1 Am, 30x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0; linear
`gradient from 7.5-13.75% acetonitrile in 4 min, followed by 13.75-18.75%
`acetonitrile in 12 min; flow-rate: 0.2-1 mI/min; temperature: 50 °C; detection:
`UV, 254 nm; sample: IX-174 DNA-HincIl digest, 0.65 pg.
`
`1064 Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 5
`
`0
`
`100
`
`200
`300
`400
`base pairs
`
`500
`
`600
`
`Figure 3. Percentage of acetonitrile needed for elution of restriction fragments
`from pBR322 DNA cleaved with HaelI, depending on the TEAA concentration.
`Chromatographic conditions as in Fig. 2.
`
`Figure 6. High-resolution liquid chromatographic separation of 31 DNA restriction
`fragments. Column: PS-DVB-C18, 2.1 pm, 50x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: 0.1
`M TEAA, pH 7.0; linear gradient from 8.75- 11.25% acetonitrile in 2 min,
`11.25-14.5% acetonitrile in 10 min, 14.5-15.25% acetonitrile in 4 min, and
`15.25-16.25% acetonitrile in 4 min; flow-rate: 1 ml/min; temperature: 50 °C;
`detection: UV, 254 nm; sample: pBR322 DNA-HaeHI digest, 0.75 gg, and
`4X-174 DNA-HincI digest, 0.65 p4g, respectively.
`
`by evaporation (20). Thirdly, polynucleotides are retained the
`less the higher the solvent strength of the mobile phase.
`Figure 3 shows the effect of TEAA in detail. Above a
`concentration of 75 mM of TEAA, ion-pair formation has reached
`nearly its maximum with regard to DNA restriction fragments
`shorter than 200 base pairs, because their retention behaviour
`remains almost the same. This is reflected in the percentage of
`acetonitrile needed for their elution. Only for longer fragments,
`a further increase in retention is noted and therefore, more
`acetonitrile is required to elute them. As far as resolution is
`concerned, the increase in the concentration of TEAA from 25
`
`Figure 4. Effect of column temperature on the chromatographic separation of
`DNA restriction fragments. Column: PS-DVB-C18, 2.1 pm, 30x4.6 mm I.D.;
`mobile phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0; linear gradient from 7.5 - 13.75 % acetonitrile
`in4min, followed by 13.75-16.25% acetonitrilein6min; flow-rate: 1 ml/min;
`temperature: 20-70 °C; detection: UV, 254 nm; sample: pBR322 DNA-HaeElI
`digest, 0.5 p4g.
`
`was not only chosen because it allows the faster elution of
`polynucleotides compared to
`the more commonly used
`tetrabutylammonium salts but also because it can be removed
`
`4
`
`

`

`-.-587
`-434
`.-..-267
`- 1 3 2
`--132
`---80
`bi- -5 1
`
`* N
`
`
`
`N co>
`
`'
`
`Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 5 1065
`
`peak half-width (min)
`
`.24
`.22
`.20
`.18
`.16
`.14
`.12
`.10
`.08
`
`.01
`
`.1
`Ig9 Injeted
`
`I
`
`* ^
`
`N.t le q
`
`cotco
`
`-un
`
`CL
`
`Figure 9. Dependence of the peak half-width on sample loading. Column: PS-
`DVB-C18, 2.1 itm, 50x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0;
`linear gradient from 12.5-17.5 % aceto-nitrile in 5 min; flow-rate: 0.75 ml/min;
`tenperature: 50 °C; detection: UV, 254 nm; sample: 404-bp PCR product, purified
`by size exclusion chromatography.
`
`T
`
`-
`
`6
`2 46
`
`-
`
`-
`
`T
`
`-
`
`8
`
`min
`
`mAU
`
`24
`
`dNTPs&
`primers
`
`ln
`
`18-
`
`12-
`
`6-
`
`a
`
`Figure 7. High-resolution liquid chromatographic separation of three PCR products
`spiked with restriction fragments from a pBR322 DNA-HaeJl digest. Column:
`PS-DVB-CI8, 2.1 Am, 50x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0;
`linear gradient from 7.5 - 13.75 % acetonitrile
`in 4 min, followed by
`13.75- 16.25% acetonitrile in 6 min; flow-rate: 1 ml/min; temperature: 50 °C;
`detection: UV, 254 am; sample: 120, 132 and 167-bp PCR products, respectively,
`and 0.5 jig of a pBR322 DNA-HaeIl digest; U=unspecific PCR product. The
`isolated restriction fragments of the pBR322 DNA-HaeIl digest were subsequendy
`separated on a 10% polyacrylamide gel in TBE buffer for 90 min at 80 V. Gels
`were then stained in TBE buffer containing 0.5 ,ug/mL ethidium bromide for 25
`min and photographed.
`
`10 pek wra (mAU-mln)
`
`T
`
`0.002 AU
`I
`
`2
`
`I
`
`4
`
`.01
`
`.1
`
`I pig
`
`Figure 8. Calibration curve for a 404-bp PCR product.
`
`to 125 mM in the eluant resulted in a linear enhancement in
`separation efficiency.
`Figure 4 illustrates the impact of column temperature on the
`resolution of DNA restriction fragments. It is evident that
`retention times increase with increasing column temperature.
`Concomitantly, resolution also improves and reaches its optimum
`at a temperature of 50 'C. The increase in retention is most
`probably the consequence of a defolding and a derotating of the
`double helix, which exposes more phosphate groups for ion-pair
`formation and, consequently, enables stronger interaction of the
`DNA molecules with the stationary phase. At even higher
`temperatures, however, a rapid decrease in separation efficiency
`is noted. This phenomenon is not related to the matrix, because
`similar results have been obtained with pure PS-DVB. The
`
`0
`
`2
`
`min
`
`Figure 10. High-speed chromatographic analyses of PCR-products. Column: PS-
`DVB-C18, 2.1 zm, 30x4.6 mm I.D.; mobile phase: 0.1 M TEAA, pH 7.0;
`linear gradient from 10-15% acetonitrile in 2 min; flow-rate: 1.5 ml/min;
`temperature: 50 °C; detection: UV, 254 am; sample: (a) normal mononuclear
`white blood cells, (b) chronic lymphatic leukemia; 1 = unspecific PCR product,
`2 = (32-microglobulin (120 bp), 3 = multidrug resistance gene II (132 bp), 4
`= multidrug resistance gene I (167 bp).
`
`decrease in resolution and the final failure to resolve the restriction
`fragments at all is rather due to the denaturation of the DNA
`molecules, which occurs in non-aqueous solutions earlier than
`in aqueous solutions (26).
`The flow-rate of the eluant also exerts a significant impact on
`resolution (Fig. 5). In the case of relatively small double-stranded
`polynucleotides up to a chain length of 200 base pairs an increase
`in the flow-rate of the eluant allows a concomitant enhancement
`in resolution due to the minimization of dispersion. But the longer
`the DNA molecules grow, the more prominent becomes their
`mass transfer resistance to move between the stationary and the
`mobile phase. This causes an increase in peak width with
`increasing flow-rate. Therefore, a flow-rate as low as 0.4 ml/min
`
`5
`
`

`

`1066 Nucleic Acids Research, 1993, Vol. 21, No. 5
`
`is preferable for the separation of double-stranded polynucleotides
`larger than approximately 600 base pairs.
`Figure 6 shows the separation of a mixture of 31 DNA
`restriction fragments obtained by the cleavage of pBR322 DNA
`with HaeIf and 4'X-174 DNA with HincH, respectively. It can
`be clearly seen that under optimized chromatographic conditions
`one base-pair resolution is obtained for fragments shorter than
`approximately 150 base pairs. Thereafter, separation efficiency
`decreases gradually.
`Quantitation of PCR products
`Figure 7 shows the separation of three PCR products spiked with
`a pBR322 DNA-HaeIH digest. Subsequently, the individual
`restriction fragments were isolated and subjected
`to
`polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis in order to confirm their
`elution order. It is evident that IP-RP-HPLC allows the separation
`of DNA molecules according to their size. This is in contrast
`to anion-exchange chromatography (12, 13) which failed to
`separate the same restriction fragments according to their length,
`because AT-pairs have been shown to interact more strongly with
`the stationary phase than GC-pairs (12).
`The chromatogram also demonstrates the high sensitivity of
`on-column UV detection, which permitted the determination of
`a PCR amplified 404-bp gene fragment with a lower mass
`detection limit of 0.006 pig. This is equal to a minimum detectable
`concentration of 300 ng/ml using a 20-/il sample loop. This value
`compares favourably to the concentration sensitivity reported for
`capillary zone
`on-column UV absorbance detection
`in
`electrophoresis (8). Moreover, the calibration curve (Fig. 8),
`which had been obtained for the 404-bp PCR product, showed
`excellent linearity (r=0.957) over a range of more than 2
`magnitudes (0.006-1.8 Atg), as assessed by the evaluation of a
`log (signal) versus log (concentration) plot (27). The relative
`standard deviation in peak area measurements was less than 5 %
`as determined with ten repeated injections of the 404-bp PCR
`product.
`The loading capacity was evaluated by injecting increasing
`amounts of a 404-bp PCR product purified chromatographically
`by means of a polyacrylamide size exclusion gel. Subsequently,
`the peak half-width was plotted against the sample load (Fig. 9).
`It remained constant at sample loads up to approximately 0.5 itg,
`and then increased with further increase in the sample load.
`However, for semipreparative purposes at least 5 jig of DNA
`can be applied with little decrease in resolution.
`The recovery of the 404-bp PCR product from the PS-DVB-
`C18 column was determined by measuring its peak area both
`with the column in place as well as after its replacement with
`an internal union. The recovery rate was 97.5%. Furthermore,
`no cross-contamination was detected. Therefore, IP-RP-HPLC
`on non-porous PS-DVB-C18 beads can be considered an
`excellent tool for the rapid analysis and micropurification of
`double-stranded polynucleotides without any prior sample
`pretreatment, as confirmed by the evaluation of the expression
`of 3-microglobulin and the multidrug resistance genes I and III
`in mononuclear white blood cells obtained from a control
`(Fig. lOa) as well as from a patient suffering from chronic
`lymphatic leukemia (Fig. lOb). Furthermore, analyses can be
`carried out with a high degree of reproducibility, the mean relative
`standard deviation of the retention times has been 3.4% for 42
`measurements.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`It is concluded that IP-RP-HPLC on alkylated non-porous styrene-
`divinylbenzene copolymers represents the first real alternative
`to gel electrophoresis. Allowing an equal sample throughput,
`no time-consuming and laborious pouring of gels as well as no
`staining with the mutagenic ethidium bromide are required.
`Moreover, quantitation can be achieved directly by means of UV
`absorbance at 254 nm without the need for an expensive two-
`dimensional gel scanner. And in comparison with capillary zone
`electrophoresis, not only faster separations are achieved, but PCR
`products may be also analyzed without prior purification.
`
`REFERENCES
`1. Stellwagen, N.C. (1987) Adv. Electrophoresis 1, 177-228.
`2. Gordon, M.J., Huang, X., Pentoney, S.L. and Zare R.N. (1988) Science
`242, 224-228.
`3. Kuhr, W.G. (1990) Anal. Chem. 62, 403R-414R.
`4. Guttman, A., Cohen, A.S., Heiger, D.N. and Karger, B.L. (1990) Anal.
`Chem. 62, 137-141.
`5. Heiger, D.N., Cohen, A.S. and Karger, B.L. (1990) J. Chromatogr. 516,
`33-48.
`6. Kasper, T.J., Melera, M., Gozel, P. and Brownlee, R.G. (1988) J.
`Chromatogr. 458, 303-312.
`7. Cohen, A.S., Najarian, D., Smith, J.A. and Karger, B.L. (1988) J.
`Chromatogr. 458, 323-333.
`8. Nathakamkitkool, S., Oefner, P.J., Bartsch, G., Chin, M.A. and Bonn, G.K.
`(1992) Electrophoresis 13, 18-31.
`9. Hardies, S.C. and Wells, R.D. (1976) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 73,
`3117-3121.
`10. Landy, A., Foeller, C., Reszelbach, R. and Dudock, B. (1976) Nucl. Acids
`Res. 3, 2575-2592.
`11. Eshaghpour, H. and Crothers, D.M. (1978) Nucl. Acids Res. 5, 13-21.
`12. Westman, E., Eriksson, S., Laas, T., Pernemalm, P.-A. and Skold S.-E.
`(1987) Anal. Biochem. 166, 158-171.
`13. Kato, Y., Yamasaki, Y., Onaka, A., Kitamura, T., Hashimoto, T., Murotsu,
`T., Fukushige, S. and Matsubara, K. (1989) J. Chromatogr. 478, 264-268.
`14. Katz, E.D., Haff, L.A. and Eksteen, R. (1990) J. Chromatogr. 512,
`433-444.
`15. Jost, W., Unger, K. and Schill, G. (1982) Anal. Biochem. 119, 214-223.
`16. Kwiatkowski, M., Sandstrom, A., Balgobin, N. and Chattopadhyaya, J.
`(1984) Acta Chem. Scand. B38, 721 -733.
`17. Huber, C.G., Oefner, P.J. and Bonn, G.K. (1992) J. Chromatogr. 599,
`113- 118.
`18. Huber, C.G., Oefner, P.J. and Bonn, G.K. (1992) Anal. Biochem., in press.
`19. Usher, D.A. (1979) Nucleic Acids Res. 6, 2289-2306.
`20. Eriksson, S., Glad, G., Pernemalm, P.-A. and Westman, E. (1986) J.
`Chromatogr. 359, 265-274.
`21. Maa, Y. and Horvdth, C. (1988) J. Chromatogr. 445, 71-86.
`22. Chirgwin, J.M., Przybyla, A.E., MacDonald, R.J. and Rutter, W.J. (1979)
`Biochemistry 18: 5294-5299.
`23. Noonan, K.E., Beck, C., Holzmayer, T.A., Chin, J.E., Wunder, J.S.,
`Andrulis, I.L., Gazdar, A.F., Willman, C.L., Griffith, B., Von Hoff, D.D.
`and Roninson, I.B. (1990) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 7160-7164.
`24. Wongyai, S., Varga, J.M. and Bonn, G.K. (1991) J. Chromatogr. 536,
`155-164.
`25. Haupt, W. and Pingoud, A. (1983) J. Chromatogr. 260, 419-427.
`26. Michelson, A.M. (1963) The Chemistry of Nucleosides and Nucleotides,
`Academic Press, London, pp. 509-512.
`27. Scott, R.P.W. (1986) Liquid Chromatography Detectors, Journal of
`Chromatography Library, Vol. 33, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 12-14.
`
`6
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket