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. 

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

More information about the Methods mailing list