Comparison of a quantitative Real-Time PCR assay and droplet digital PCR for copy number analysis of the CCL4L genes

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the findings that copy number variation, of the CCL3 encoding genes, influences HIV-1 infection and disease progression has been in part attributed to the variable results obtained from methods used for copy number evaluation. Like CCL3, the genes encoding the CC chemokine CCL4, also a natural ligand of the CCR5 receptor, are found to occur in population-specific multiple copy number and have been shown to play a protective role against HIV-1. This study evaluated the standard method of quantitative Real-Time PCR (qPCR) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) for CCL4L gene copy number determination. The CCL4 encoding genes are CCL4, occurring in two copies per diploid genome (pdg), and the non-allelic CCL4L genes, comprised of CCL4L1 and CCL4L2, which are both found in multiple copies pdg. Copy number of CCL4L, CCL4L1 and CCL4L2 was determined in a cohort of HIV-1-uninfected individuals from the South African Black (n=23) and Caucasian (n=32) population groups using qPCR and ddPCR. A stronger correlation between the number of CCL4L copies and the sum of CCL4L1 and CCL4L2 copies generated by ddPCR (r=0.99, p<0.0001) compared to qPCR (r=0.87, p<0.0001) was observed. Real-Time qPCR exhibited greater inaccuracy at higher copy numbers which is particularly relevant to our cohort of Black individuals who have a higher range of CCL4L copies (3–6) compared to Caucasians (0–4) and a higher population median (4 and 2, respectively). Medians and ranges of CCL4L1 (Black: 2, 0–4, Caucasian: 0, 0–2) and CCL4L2 (Black: 2, 1–5, Caucasian: 2, 0–3) were also higher in the Black population. Droplet digital PCR was shown to be a far superior method to qPCR for assessment of CCL4 gene copy number variation, the accuracy of which is essential for studies of the contribution of variable gene copy number to phenotypic outcomes of host infection and disease course.