SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Sample Prep / Library Generation



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ampure versus Qiaquick for small amounts of DNA Scotch Sample Prep / Library Generation 12 05-16-2017 09:50 AM
Ampure XP buffer cli Sample Prep / Library Generation 8 12-16-2014 10:26 PM
Ampure XP Hack sjcire Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 07-02-2012 07:16 AM
Ampure XP inconsistency HMorrison Sample Prep / Library Generation 6 11-03-2011 11:58 AM
Ampure XP automation HGENETIC Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 07-19-2010 08:24 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-24-2010, 09:11 AM   #1
seqgirl123
Member
 
Location: U.S

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 74
Default Ampure versus Ampure XP

Does anyone use Ampure (aka SPRI) in their library prep to replace the other types of PCR purification methods? Ampure XP is a newer version of the existing Ampure, supposed to be faster cleanup.

I cannot find a good text description that will answer these questions. Does anyone know?

1) what is the Ampure buffer made of ?
2) what are the beads made up of? are they of a polymer substance?
3) how does the DNA bind to the beads and then to the magnet? (all I know is that probably the positive charge on the beads bind the negatively charged DNA, and this complex then binds to the magnet, but what is the actual chemistry here, such as carbon or phosphate bonds of the DNA involved or how the makeup of the beads react to the DNA?)
4) are the 70% ethanol washing steps to remove any contaminants that are bound to the beads?
5) how does dna elute off in Tris while the beads are still bound to the magnet, again want to know the chemistry behind it?
6) how does XP performs faster cleanup versus Ampure, meaning what is the difference in the binding chemistry? Are the beads bigger in XP versus regular Ampure, or does bead size matter at all?

Last edited by seqgirl123; 01-24-2010 at 09:13 AM.
seqgirl123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 10:30 AM   #2
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,355
Default

Great questions. Many of these questions are answered in the original patents (the main one is attached...I really like http://patentstorm.us for a free source of patents if you need more).

PEG and some combination of high salts (based on the patent...most likely ~10-15% PEG6-8k, + 1-1.5M NaCl + some divalents) precipitates nucleic acids (and some other molecules)...directly onto the bead surface (which is carboxylated).

It's a very old technique to PEG precipitate via traditional centrifugation, the beads just allow you to avoid spinning by acting as nucleation sites for the precipitation.

As far as the exact chemical differences between standard and XP, I don't know.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Hawkins 1998.pdf (1.67 MB, 1944 views)
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 12:34 PM   #3
seqgirl123
Member
 
Location: U.S

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 74
Default

thanks, the info helps a lot.

If anyone knows of any info about XP it would be helpful, such as if bead size or surface area of binding is larger than that of regular Ampure, or how binding chemistry is faster now?
seqgirl123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2010, 02:03 PM   #4
greigite
Senior Member
 
Location: Cambridge, MA

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 141
Default

I don't know how the chemistry differs, but a rep told me the main difference between the kits is a longer shelf life for XP (1 yr versus 6 mo for regular).

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqgirl123 View Post
thanks, the info helps a lot.

If anyone knows of any info about XP it would be helpful, such as if bead size or surface area of binding is larger than that of regular Ampure, or how binding chemistry is faster now?
greigite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 07:29 AM   #5
nextgen
Member
 
Location: East Coast

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 26
Default Ampure

Ampure is just more expensive. Some of the time saved is just from reducing drying time. I think PCRClean is better in terms of band tightness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqgirl123 View Post
thanks, the info helps a lot.

If anyone knows of any info about XP it would be helpful, such as if bead size or surface area of binding is larger than that of regular Ampure, or how binding chemistry is faster now?
nextgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2010, 08:12 AM   #6
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greigite View Post
I don't know how the chemistry differs, but a rep told me the main difference between the kits is a longer shelf life for XP (1 yr versus 6 mo for regular).
Azide in XP.
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2010, 03:53 PM   #7
H5N1
Junior Member
 
Location: Geelong, Australia

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqgirl123 View Post

1) what is the Ampure buffer made of ?
AMPure buffer: 1.25 M NaCl, 7% PEG8000. See the old file from Roche. I don't know if the AMPure XP buffer is exactly same.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Optimizing the AMPure bead performance.pdf (196.5 KB, 1920 views)
H5N1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2010, 06:59 PM   #8
peterwang
Junior Member
 
Location: Stanford, CA

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqgirl123 View Post
2) what are the beads made up of? are they of a polymer substance? ....
6) how does XP performs faster cleanup versus Ampure, meaning what is the difference in the binding chemistry? Are the beads bigger in XP versus regular Ampure, or does bead size matter at all?
I found some answers in a Powerpoint/PDF on the Beckman-Coulter AMPure website (attached, see pages 5 & 6).

AMPure XP beads have two magnetite layers vs. only one layer in AMPure beads; so they may be bigger. In AMPure beads, the magnetite is sealed by a "non-styrene polymer"; it is unclear from the figure whether XP beads are sealed with something else or the same. For both, the surface is covered with carboxylic acid groups.

The increased magnetite content in XP beads makes them bind faster to magnets. However, the major speed-up is because the XP protocol eliminates the 10 min. air-drying step after 70% EtOH wash that is in the original protocol.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf AMPureXPvsAMPure.pdf (1.23 MB, 1622 views)
peterwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2010, 11:52 AM   #9
Hyped
Junior Member
 
Location: North Carolina

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Anybody know how big the Agencourt Ampure XP magnetic beads are?
Hyped is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2010, 04:50 AM   #10
squeak
Junior Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Default

How is the drying time supposed to be reduced so much? I still do a 5 minute as I think it's necessary
squeak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 08:56 AM   #11
der_eiskern
Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 46
Default AmpureXP binding capacity?

Anyone know about the ampure XP binding capacity for the beads? other magnetic bead systems claim 2 micrograms per 100 micrograms of beads.

Thanks,
Der.
der_eiskern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 12:50 PM   #12
janejane
Member
 
Location: Midwest

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECO View Post
Azide in XP.
wouldn't azide interfere with library preparation?
janejane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 01:26 PM   #13
peterwang
Junior Member
 
Location: Stanford, CA

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8
Default

@ squeak:
I agree with you, I still let XP beads dry completely; not sure it's necessary, but it seems sensible to evaporate off the last traces of EtOH.

@ der eiskern:
The capacity of beads is probably quite high, since it is really a PEG precipitation and the beads just provide a surface to accumulate on (see ECO's post above).
There is a paper giving a "home-made" SPRI protocol using Dynal(Invitrogen) MyOne-carboxylic acid beads which states that 10 ul beads was sufficient for 0.5 ug DNA.

I haven't tried their protocol, but it is intended for construction of high-throughput deep-sequencing libraries.
Lundin S, Stranneheim H, Pettersson E, Klevebring D, Lundeberg J. "Increased throughput by parallelization of library preparation for massive sequencing." PLoS One. 5:e10029 (2010).
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0010029

@ janejane:
any azide in the buffer would be washed away before the DNA is eluted.
peterwang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2010, 10:53 PM   #14
sjcire
Junior Member
 
Location: Corvallis OR

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4
Default Results

Thanks everyone for the information you posted here. I use the ampute XP product and have a need to purify a large volume of a low concentration DNA solution. I cannot use one ml of Ampure XP for every purification...again. One concern however it the low end cut off. Apparently this quality of the beads can be modified by the concentration of the crowding reagent. It is important that I know that I recover at least 150 bp and above. To this end I ran the following experiment. Using the stock reagents found in the attached document I created three PEG solutions. Each solution was made so that when 90ul was added to 50ul of sample it would have a NaCl concentration of 1.25M, MgCl2 concentration of 10mM and either 7, 10, or 13% PEG 8000. I followed my own Ampure XP procedure(also found in the attached document) with the following modification. Three 90ul alloquotes of Ampure XP were collected by magnet and washed twice with either 90ul of 7, 10, 0r 13% PEG solution. 90ul of each solution was added to the washed beads. 25ul Hi-Lo DNA marker(bionexus) and 25ul of dH2O was added to the three washed bead suspensions and 90ul of Ampure XP (not washed). After beads had been washed with EtOH and dried, 25ul of dH2O was used to elute. 5ul of 40% sucrose was added to each sample and then 10ul of each sample was loaded into 4-20% TBE acrylamide gel, unpurified Hi-Lo was also loaded. Gel was run at 300v in 0.5 TBE until BPB ran off gel. Gel was stained with ethidium bromide and destained in dH2O. Gel was visualized with an alpha innotech.

Results:

WTF, the ampure treated samples did not run correctly. LOL, what a waist of time. It may have been the sucrose, or the excessive heat used or maybe quick temperature change. Any ideas? I have noted that sucrose loaded samples run differently from glycerol samples. Perhaps Hi-Lo was not meant to be run with sucrose.

Samples are as follows:
Ladder:Bionexus Hi-Lo - lowest band is 50bp. (Most people can get the rest from there. If you cant google bionexus hi-lo)
1. Ampure XP
2. 7% PEG
3. 10% PEG
4. 13% PEG
It is clear from the gel that all preformed similarly. However note that low molecular weight bands (whatever they are) are faint in the 7% sample. If that band corresponds to 50bp than it would appear that 7% was less able to precipitate low molecular weight oligomers. 10% and 13% are more or less indistinguishable from AmpureXP. It remarkable that during the experiment each sample collected the magnetic beads at different rates. This may have been due to the viscosity of the solution they were suspended. 7% cleared beads quickest followed by Ampure XP then 10% then 13%. This is in agreement with the gel.

Conclusion: Quit f**king up gels. My god I've been running DNA for almost a decade and I'm still screwing it up. F my life. Also, use 10% PEG with 1.25M NaCl and 10mM MgCl2 for similar results to Ampure XP. 7% works and could be used to size select DNA.


I may rerun this experiment. Any pointers? Has anyone ever seen a ladder run like this? I'm interested in eliminating DNA up to 150bp and it would seem that lowing PEG concentration to 7 or lower may accomplish this.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ampure-unmodified.jpg (96.3 KB, 662 views)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DNA purification and concentration by Ampure XP.pdf (51.3 KB, 901 views)
sjcire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2010, 01:54 PM   #15
sjcire
Junior Member
 
Location: Corvallis OR

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4
Default Retry

Above experiment was repeated with the following changes. Sample was dried in a vacufuge for 5 min. Samples were eluted at room temperature. Sample key is the same. Additional sample was loaded, Hi-Lo with sucrose.

It appears that the weird looking gel was a result of the heating steps, either drying or eluting. This gel ran normally. It seems obvious that less PEG does effect the recovery of short nucleotides. 7% PEG recovered only ~25% 50bp nucleotide, ~50% 100bp. Recovery was nearly 100% at 200bp and above for all concentrations of PEG. It would appear, as I stated above, that Ampure XP acts as we would expect if the PEG concentration was between 7 and 10 %. Furthermore, it is obvious that the size exclusion characteristic is not an abrupt cutoff but a broad slope. Clearly, further research is needed...robust, dynamic, synergy. Oh wait this is not a paper.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ampure2_inverse.jpg (78.7 KB, 470 views)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf DNA purification and concentration by Ampure XP.pdf (53.3 KB, 545 views)

Last edited by sjcire; 11-23-2010 at 02:34 PM.
sjcire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 08:07 AM   #16
Susanne
Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 33
Default

Does anybody know what the composition of the elution buffer is? Shouldn't that be almost water?
Susanne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011, 08:20 AM   #17
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,355
Default

Water will work. Typically I use 10mM TrisHCl pH 8.5.
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2011, 07:29 AM   #18
Erika Feltrin
Junior Member
 
Location: Italy

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7
Default Ampure XP size

Anybody know how big the Agencourt Ampure XP magnetic beads are?
Erika Feltrin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2011, 01:44 PM   #19
edawad
Member
 
Location: bay area

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10
Default

When using Ampure XP beads, the included protocol says to dry for <5 min after the EtOH wash to avoid beads drying out too much and cracking. However most online protocols I see, plus Illumina's Truseq protocol (which uses Ampure XP) all say to dry for 15+ min until the beads crack. Anyone have any experience what difference this makes?

Also most protocols say to use fresh 70% ethanol to wash, but the Truseq calls for 80%. My understanding is that the higher ethanol concentration might be less efficient at washing away smaller molecules. Has anyone played around with this?

thanks
edawad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2011, 09:24 PM   #20
katsigner
Junior Member
 
Location: Singapore

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Can the beads be reused?? Any idea?
katsigner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO