pcr

[lauraCasenav]

I run a PCR test for an infectious disease. When the negative control is contaminated and reads positive, my boss wants to release results any way instead of invalidating the run. He wants to Repcr teh samples instead of re-extract them.
Any comments any one about this?
Thank you in advance for any imput.
Floppy

[wildwood]

Isn't this illegal? It certainly is if the work you are doing is commisioned work.

[Myriad2112]

I don't understand the question

[jake-the-peg]

PCR is a process whereby a small sample is "amplified" so that tests can be run.

Typically used in forensic DNA tests where the samllest samples can be reproduced so that comparisom tests can be run. (It's been contraversial in the past)

A contaminated sample can read positive and it was this that was used to obliterate the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial.

In this instance the suggestion is to use the original sample and re-run the proceudure to amplify them rather than start again from scratch and get new original samples.

Now it's not my area but I'd say it depends on
a) Whether or not you can be sure where the contamination occured.
b) What the consequences of error are - is it "saefty critical" for example

[lauraCasenav]

Thanks for your help, for myriad2112, In my opinion the run with a contaminated control (neg control that shows a positive) should be discarded and all sample should be repeated. I think that they should be repeated using the same original sample and starting with DNA aisolation. But instead only the contaminated control is reamplified and if the new result is NEG then the original run is accepted. Hope this clarify my original question.
Tx

[theprof]

Without knowing the exact nature of the work that you do and the facilities available, I can give you only a general opinion on this one.

Put it like this: if your manager followed the policy he expects of you in my university laboratories, he'd be out of the door before his feet touched the ground. To my mind, he badly needs re-training as he cannot see the implications of what he's doing.

For most purposes, the method you suggest is more reliable.