The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Alamut 2

Manufactured by Sophia Genetics
Sourced in United States, France, Switzerland

Alamut 2.0 is a software tool designed for the analysis and interpretation of genetic variants. It provides a comprehensive platform for visualizing and annotating genetic data, including support for various file formats and integration with external databases.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

9 protocols using alamut 2

1

Sanger Sequencing of Putative Variant

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
For the SMS variant, Qiagen HotStarTaq master mix (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) was used to amplify the putative variant and 200 flanking nucleotides using the primers 5′-TGTGGCTTTCTTTTGCACAC-3′ and 5′-TGCATCTCAAAAACCAGCAG-3′. Unincorporated primers and nucleotides were removed using ExoSAP-IT reagent (USB, Cleveland, OH, USA). Sanger capillary sequencing was used to sequence the PCR products (Macrogen, Rockville, MD), and the sequences were aligned and analyzed using Sequencher v.4.10.1 (Gene Codes, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). Mutation interpretation was conducted using Alamut 2.0 (Interactive Biosoftware, San Diego, CA, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Exonic Variant Protein Impact Prediction

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Exonic variants were evaluated by widely used programs for prediction of possible interference with the function, structure or stability of a protein (Supplementary Table 5): Mutation Taster (http://www.mutationtaster.org; Ensembl transcript ENST00000336273, NM_178812; GRCh37/ Ensembl 69), SIFT and GVGD as a part of commercial Alamut 2.0 (Interactive Biosoftware, Roven, France), PolyPhen-2 (http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph2/; UniProt peptide Q86UE4), PROVEAN (http://provean.jcvi.org/index.php; Human GRCh37/Ensemble 66) and, MUpro (http://mupro.proteomics.ics.uci.edu).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Sanger Sequencing of Genetic Variants

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The primer pairs RAI1-F-5′-CCAGGGCTGTTTGAAGACC -3′ and RAI1-R-5′-AAGTCGGCGGTGGAACAG -3′, PCK1-F-5′-CTCTGCAGAAATGCCTCCTC -3′ and PCK1-R-5′-CACCTTTCTCCACCAACTCC -3′ and GRIN2B-F-5′-AATCCCACAGCTCAAAAGCA -3′ and GRIN2B-R-5′-ATGTTGGCACTTGTTGGCTT -3′ were used to amplify respectively from genomic DNA the putative variants NM_030665:c.2273G>A, NM_000834.3:c.1238A>G, NM_002591.3:c.134T>C and 200 flanking nucleotides. PCR amplification was performed using Qiagen HotStarTaq master mix (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). The following conditions were used for amplification: 1 cycle of 95°C for 5 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30 s, and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. Unincorporated primers and nucleotides were removed using ExoSAP-IT reagent (USB, Cleveland, OH, USA).
Sanger sequencing of the PCR products was performed by Macrogen (Rockville, MD). The sequences were aligned and analyzed using Sequencher v.5.0.1 (Gene Codes, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). Mutation interpretation analysis was conducted using Alamut 2.0 (Interactive Biosoftware, San Diego, CA, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Comprehensive Variant Annotation Pipeline

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Mutation interpretation analysis was conducted using Alamut 2.0 (Interactive Biosoftware, San Diego, CA, United States). The significance of identified alterations was screened with HGMD2, dbSNP3, and ClinVar4 database. The novel alterations were established according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines (Richards et al., 2015 (link)).
The results were analyzed with in silico prediction software Polyphen2 (Adzhubei et al., 2010 (link)) (Polymorphism Phenotyping version 2)5, SIFT (‘‘Sorting Tolerant From Intolerant’’)6 (Kumar et al., 2009 (link)), and Mutation Taster7 (Schwarz et al., 2014 (link)).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Amplification and Sanger Sequencing of Genomic Regions

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The primer pairs used for the amplification of the regions of genomic DNA around the mutations are listed in online supplementary table S-4. PCR amplification was performed using Qiagen HotStarTaq master mix (Qiagen, Valencia, California, USA). The following conditions were used for amplification: 1 cycle of 95°C for 5 min, followed by 39 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30 s, and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. Unincorporated primers and nucleotides were removed using ExoSAP-IT reagent (USB, Cleveland, Ohio, USA). Sanger dideoxy sequencing of the PCR products was performed by Macrogen (Rockville, Maryland, USA). The sequences were aligned and analysed using Sequencher V.5.0.1 (Gene Codes, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA). Mutation interpretation analysis was conducted using Alamut 2.0 (Interactive Biosoftware, San Diego, California, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Exome Sequencing and TYMP Variant Annotation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Library preparation, exome capture, sequencing, and variant annotation were performed by IntegraGen SA (Evry, France). Genomic DNA was captured using the Twist Human Core Exome Enrichment System (Twist Bioscience, OR, USA) and IntegraGen Custom, followed by paired-end 75 bases massively parallel sequencing on Illumina HiSeq4000. Analysis of exome data was performed using Sirius software (IntegraGen SA). TYMP variants were described based on the longest isoform (NM_001953.4) using Alamut 2.11 (Sophia Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland) and Human Genome Variation Society guidelines.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Sanger Sequencing for LMNA Variants

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
LMNA variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing with the BigDye Terminator v3.1 sequencing kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) after polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of exon 9 and flanking intronic sequences. Data were analyzed on a 3500xL Dx device with the SeqScape v2.7 software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). LMNA variants were described based on the longest isoform (NM_170707.2) using Alamut 2.11 (Sophia Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland) and Human Genome Variation Society guidelines.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Genetic Screening for C2 Deficiency

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Genetic testing was performed on 212/273 patients (77.7%). Genomic DNA was extracted and purified from whole blood using standard procedures. Screening of type 1 C2 deficiency was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and gel migration on agarose as previously described (29 (link)). Amplifications by PCR (GoTaq DNA Polymerase, Promega, USA) of all exons and flanking splices sites of all the complement components were performed using specific forward and reverse primers (available on request). PCR products were purified (Multiscreen plates, Millipore, USA) and sequenced by the Big Dye terminator cycle sequencing methods using the same forward and reverse primers that for amplification (QiaQuick PCR Purification Kit, Qiagen SA, Hilden, Germany). Sequence analyses were then conducted (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) and read using Sequencher 5.0 (Gene Codes Corporation, USA). The interpretation of mutations was performed by comparing sequences of patients with the reference sequences exons using Alamut 2.3 (Interactive Biosoftware, France).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Predicting Splicing Changes via Computational Tools

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
We used Alamut 2.3 (Interactive Biosoftware, Rouen, France), which combines the results of 7 splicing prediction algorithms— Human Splicing Finder (www.umd.be/HSF),29 (link) GeneSplicer (http://www.cbcb.umd.edu/software/GeneSplicer),30 (link) MaxEntScan (genes.mit.edu/burgelab/maxent/Xmaxentscan_scoreseq.html),31 (link) NNSplice,32 (link) Splice Site Finder-Like,33 ESE-Finder (http://rulai.cshl.edu/tools/ESE), and RESCUE-ESE (http://genes.mit.edu/burgelab/rescue-ese/)—to predict whether a synonymous variant would alter predicted intron–exon splicing patterns. We used the Genome Variation Server (http://gvs.gs.washington.edu/GVS137/index.jsp) to determine whether the common (MAF ≥0.01) synonymous variants were in linkage disequilibrium.
+ 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!