PCR errors:How many really?

Duncan Clark Duncan at genesys.demon.co.uk
Mon Jun 5 06:18:20 EST 1995


In article: <D9ID92.IC7 at ncifcrf.gov>  pnh at fcsparc6.ncifcrf.gov (Paul N Hengen) writes:

> Could you give me more information about the two references you describe as
> tests for polymerase fidelity?  At one time someone posted a list of
> polymerases and their fidelity measurements. It would be nice if one were
> compiled with the reference and method used for the test since many people
> quote this or that frequency and the enzymes really aren't playing on a level
> field without a standard method. Does anyone have such a list on hand?  The
> only references I have to this effect are getting to be a bit old and surely
> other polymerases have been added since these were published.
> 
> @article{Keohavong1989,
> author = "P. Keohavong
>      and W. G. Thilly",
> title = "Fidelity of {DNA} polymerases in {DNA} amplification",
> journal = "Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA",
> volume = "86",
> pages = "9253-9257",
> year = "1989"}
> 
> @article{Eckert1991,
> author = "K. A. Eckert
>      and T. A. Kunkel",
> title = "{DNA} polymerase fidelity and the polymerase chain reaction",
> journal = "PCR Methods and Applications",
> volume = "1",
> pages = "17-24",
> year = "1991"}


Have a look at Wayne Barnes's paper in Gene, 112, pp29-35, (1992), 
Flaman et al, NAR 22 No.15, pp3259-3260 and Nature Genetics, 5, 124-129.

I don't know of any up to date fidelity comparison. What I would like to know 
is if the Taq or Tth/Pfu or Vent proofreading mixes have improved fidelity
over the thermus enzyme on its own. 
 

Duncan
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts!




More information about the Methods mailing list