The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Genomic dna enzymatic labeling kit

Manufactured by Agilent Technologies
Sourced in United States

The Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit is a laboratory product designed for the enzymatic labeling of genomic DNA samples. The kit includes reagents and materials necessary for the labeling process.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

13 protocols using genomic dna enzymatic labeling kit

1

Transcriptomic Profiling of FFPE Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All FFPE samples contained at least 30% tumor cells (Supplementary Table S1). RNA isolation, amplification, labelling, hybridization to Agilent full-genome microarrays and data processing of FFPE samples was performed as previous described [10 (link)]. RNA extraction was performed using two sections of 10-μm thickness or four sections of 5-μm thickness. Deparaffinization and total RNA extraction was performed using an RNeasy FFPE kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. RNA yield was quantified using a NanoDrop spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) as described previously [12 (link)]. Extracted RNA was amplified using a TransPLEX C-WTA whole-transcriptome amplification kit (Rubicon Genomics, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). Amplified cDNA was labeled using the Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and hybridized onto Agendia’s full genome arrays (custom-designed and produced by Agilent Technologies specifically for Agendia), both according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For FFPE samples, no reference channel was used. Gene expression intensities were normalized using Lowess normalization method implemented in Matlab software version R2012a (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Genomic Structural Variant Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Agilent SurePrint G3 Mouse Microarray 4 × 180 K array technology (Agilent Technology, Inc., Palo Alto, USA) was used to analyse genomic structural variants62 (link). Genomic DNA was isolated from tumour cells by chloroform/phenol extraction followed by ethanol precipitation (Sigma). Test and reference genomic DNAs (500 ng per sample) were fluorescently labelled with Cy5 (test samples) and Cy3 (reference: original cells that inoculated into the mice) with a Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies). All array hybridizations were performed according to the manufacturer's methods, immediately scanned with a G2565BA Microarray Scanner System (Agilent), and processed by Feature Extraction Software Ver. 10.7.3.1 (Agilent). All regions of statistically significant copy-number change were determined using Aberration Detection Method-2 (ADM2) algorithms on Agilent Genomic Workbench software version 6.5 Lite software (Agilent Technology)63 (link). The ADM2 algorithms identify genomic regions with copy-number differences between the test and the reference based on log2 ratios of fluorescent signals from probes in the interval. Results were analysed under conditions that fuzzy zero was ON and Moving Average was set at 60 pt.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Genomic Profiling of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Genomic DNA samples from OSCC and normal tissue (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) were differentially labeled using the Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies). The hybridizations were performed on Agilent Human CGH 44K Oligo Microarrays according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The aCGH images were acquired with a DNA microarray scanner using SureScan High-Resolution Technology and the Scan Control (version 8.1) software program (Agilent Technologies). Genomic Workbench software (Agilent Technologies) with the statistical algorithm ADM-2, and sensitivity threshold 6.0 was used to investigate chromosomal patterns within the microarray profiles. These parameters were used to define the following: copy number gain (≥ 0.6), copy number loss (≤ 0.8), and homozygous loss (≤ −1.2). Unsupervised clustering was utilized to identify the grouping profiles. Hierarchical clustering was performed using Euclidean distance and complete linkage with 1000 permutations. The molecular processes, functions and molecular networks were further evaluated by analyzing alterated genes using Ingenuity Pathways Analysis (IPA) (http://www.ingenuity.com). Protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks were annotated by the I2D database (http://ophid.utoronto.ca), visualized and analyzed using NAViGaTOR v2.03 (http://ophid.utoronto.ca/navigator/).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Comparative Genomic Hybridization Microarray Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Array-based CGH was performed by the manufacturer Takara Bio Dragon Genomics Center (Seta, Shiga, Japan). In brief, DNA (2 micro g) was fluorescent-labeled by random priming DNA synthesis in the presence of Cy3-dUTP (control group) or Cy5-dUTP (patient group) (Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit; Agilent Technologies, Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan). DNA labeling efficiency was estimated by spectrophotometry (Nanodrop ND-2000®) measuring optical absorbance at 260 nm for DNA, at 550 nm for Cy5, and at 649 nm for Cy3. Cy5- and Cy3-labeled DNAs were randomly paired, mixed, and hybridized to SurePrint G3 Human CGH Microarrays (1 M) in the presence of human Cot-1 DNA (Oligo aCGH/ChIP-on-chip Hybridization Kit, Agilent Technologies). Following hybridization for 24 h, microarray slides were washed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and immediately scanned on a DNA Microarray Scanner (Agilent Technologies). With the given limitation of the sample number, we took an advantage of the above direct comparison between case and control samples [57 (link)]. This approach allowed us to determine relative ratios of their gene dosages but not their absolute gene dosages. However this procedure decreased data deviations, compared with the CGH analysis utilizing two microarrays and reference genome DNA [30 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Genome-wide negative selection screen

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Negative screening was performed using the Decode RNAi Pooled Lentiviral shRNA Screening Libraries: Annotated Genome Negative Selection Kit (Thermo Scientific). Briefly, T-REx HeLa cells (Invitrogen) were infected with a lentiviral siRNA expression library (Thermo Scientific) using TransDux reagent (System Biosciences). Green fluorescent protein-positive cells were selected by puromycin treatment and divided into two populations, one of which was irradiated with 0.75 Gy using a 137Cs irradiator (Gy/min, Best Theratronics); the other served as a non-irradiated control. Four days after irradiation, genomic DNA was purified from each population using a DNA purification kit (Dojindo). Barcode sequences were amplified from 0.5 μg of genomic DNA, purified by gel extraction, and labeled using a Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies). After purification using Amicon Ultra-0.5 ml centrifugal filters (Millipore), the labeled barcode sequences were hybridized with microarray slides for 17 h and the slides were then washed according to the Agilent CpG microarray protocol. Cluster analysis of the extracted genes was performed using the information in the GeneCards database (http://www.genecards.org/) and KEGG (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Detecting Genomic Structural Variants using aCGH

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To analyze genomic structural variants, we chose Agilent SurePrint G3 Mouse Microarray 8 × 60 K array technology for aCGH analysis [19] (link). Test and reference genomic DNAs (250 ng per sample) of human ESCs were fluorescently labeled with Cy5 (test: passage 4 of SEES-2) and Cy3 (reference: passage 24 of SEES-2) with a Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies). All array hybridizations were performed according to the manufacturer's methods. All regions of statistically significant copy number change were determined using Aberration Detection Method-2 (ADM2) algorithms [24] (link). The ADM2 algorithms identify genomic regions with copy-number differences between the test and the reference based on log2 ratios of fluorescent signals from probes in the interval.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Single Fiber Transcriptome Profiling

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Amplification and labeling of RNA from single fibers were fully described in our previous work [27 (link)]. Briefly, RNA was purified from each single myofiber and exponentially amplified using the TransPlex Whole Transcriptome Amplification 2 Kit (Sigma-Aldrich). RNA was reverse-transcribed in a cDNA library, and the library was amplified for 18 cycles. cDNA was then labeled by using the Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Labeled cDNA was purified using the Amicon 30 kDa filters (Millipore, Burlington, MA) and quantified. Microarray experiments were performed as previously described [27 (link)] with SurePrint G3 Mouse Gene Expression 8 x 60 K microarray platforms (Agilent Technologies).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Transcriptome Analysis of Vitreous Fluid in PVRL

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
RNA was extracted from the vitreous fluid of PVRL patients with an RNeasy Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). Lymph nodes of patients with nodal DLBCL were used as controls. RNA from the lymph nodes of nodal DLBCL was isolated using ISOGEN II (Nippon Gene, Tokyo, Japan). Their pathological subtypes were determined by Hans criteria.4Five nanograms of total RNA were used for amplification with an Ovation RNA Amplification System V2 (NuGEN Technologies). One microgram of purified, amplified cDNA was used as the input in the Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technologies). The amplification and labeling reactions were carried out according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Labeled cDNA was hybridized to a SurePrint G3 Human GE Microarray 8x60K v2 (Agilent Technologies) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Relative hybridization intensities and background hybridization values were calculated using Agilent Feature Extraction Software (9.5.1.1).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

S. suis Microarray Gene Expression Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
cDNA preparations that were positive for S. suis orf2 by qPCR were used for microarray experiments. cDNA (0.5–2.5 µg) was labeled with cyanine 3-d-UTP using the Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling kit (Agilent Technologies) according to manufacturer’s instructions and purified using Amicon Ultra-30K membrane filters (Millipore). Prior to hybridization, pure labeled cDNA in Agilent blocking reagent and Agilent Hi-RPM buffer was incubated for 3 min at 95°C followed by 30 min at 37°C. The mixture was then hybridized to one array of an 8 × 15 k custom S. suis oligo-array (Agilent Technologies) containing probes based on genome sequences of strain P1/7 [27] and probes designed on incomplete genome sequences of strains 891,591, 8067, 7917, and 6388 and incubated at 65°C in a rotator hybridization oven. After 17 h, arrays were washed for 5 min at RT in Oligo aCGH wash buffer 1 (Agilent Technologies) and subsequently for 1 min at 37°C in Oligo aCGH wash buffer 2. Arrays were dried at RT and scanned using a Surescan high-resolution DNA microarray scanner (Agilent Technologies), followed by data analysis using Feature extraction software and Genespring GX software, both also from Agilent Technologies.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Comparative Genomic Hybridization Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
CGH array was performed using SurePrint G3 Human CGH Bundle (4 × 180K) (Agilent) according to manufacturer instructions. Briefly, 1 μg of genomic DNA corresponding to either a human male control [20] , EndoC-βH2 or EndoC-βH3 cells both at passage 40 was fragmented by heating at 95 °C for 30 min. Fragmented DNAs were labeled with Cy3 (control DNA) and Cy5 (EndoC-βH2/EndoC-βH3 DNA) fluorescent dUTP, respectively, using Genomic DNA Enzymatic Labeling Kit (Agilent Technology). Microcon YM 30 spin columns (Millipore) were used to remove the unincorporated nucleotides and dyes. Hybridizations of labeled DNA to SurePrint G3 Human CGH Bundle (4 × 180K) array (Agilent) were performed in a hybridization oven at 42 C at 20 rpm for 40 h. Hybridized arrays were then washed following the manufacturer's instructions. Microarray slides were scanned on a Nimblegen MS200 Microarray Scanner at a 2 μm resolution. Feature extraction was done with Cytogenomics Software (Agilent). Extracted data were imported and analyzed using Nexus 7.0 (Biodiscovery).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!