Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a high-throughput molecular biology technique designed to detect and relatively quantify copy number variations (CNVs) in up to 60 specific genomic DNA sequences in a single reaction using only 20 ng of sample DNA and a single pair of PCR primers.^[1] The method relies on synthetic probes that hybridize to target DNA sequences, undergo ligation only when adjacent and properly annealed, and are subsequently amplified by PCR, with the resulting fragments separated and quantified by capillary electrophoresis to compare peak heights against a reference sample, thereby identifying deletions, duplications, or amplifications.^[2]^[3] MLPA was developed in 2002 by Jan Schouten and colleagues at MRC-Holland, a Dutch biotechnology company, as an improvement over earlier methods like multiplex amplifiable probe hybridization (MAPH), offering greater sensitivity, simplicity, and robustness for clinical diagnostics.^[1]^[2] Since its introduction, the technique has been widely adopted in laboratories worldwide, with nearly 1,000 publications by 2011 and now over 10,000 as of 2025, establishing it as a gold standard for targeted CNV analysis due to its ability to distinguish single-nucleotide differences and handle pseudogene interference.^[4]^[5] In applications, MLPA is primarily used for diagnosing genetic disorders caused by CNVs, such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy, spinal muscular atrophy, and hereditary neuropathies, where it screens multiple exons simultaneously to identify deletions or duplications.^[4] It also plays a key role in oncology for detecting somatic CNVs in tumors, aiding in prognosis and treatment decisions, and in prenatal testing for chromosomal aneuploidies like trisomy 21.^[2]^[6] Variants of the technique, including methylation-specific MLPA (MS-MLPA) for epigenetic analysis and reverse transcription MLPA (RT-MLPA) for RNA quantification, have expanded its utility to study gene expression and DNA methylation patterns in diseases like cancer and imprinting disorders. Advancements like digitalMLPA, introduced in 2020, have further expanded its capabilities to over 1,000 targets per reaction using next-generation sequencing integration.^[6]^[7] The advantages of MLPA include its low cost, rapid turnaround (results in about 24 hours), high throughput (up to 96 samples per run), and minimal hands-on time (five main steps: denaturation, hybridization, ligation, amplification, and electrophoresis), making it more efficient than alternatives like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) for targeted testing.^[2]^[4] However, it is limited to predefined targets and may require complementary methods like next-generation sequencing (NGS) for detecting small insertions, deletions, or unknown variants, with recent integrations like NGS-MLPA enhancing its resolution and automation.^[6]

History

Invention and Early Development

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) was invented by Jan P. Schouten, a Dutch scientist, in 2002 while working at MRC-Holland, a biotechnology company based in the Netherlands.^[8] The technique emerged as an advancement in molecular diagnostics, addressing the need for efficient multiplex analysis of nucleic acid sequences in limited sample quantities, such as those from tumor tissues.^[8] The initial motivation for developing MLPA stemmed from the limitations of prior methods like multiplex amplifiable probe hybridization (MAPH), which required immobilization of sample nucleic acids on a solid support and extensive washing steps to remove unbound probes, making the process labor-intensive and less sensitive for low-input samples.^[8] Schouten and colleagues sought to create a simpler, solution-based assay that could perform relative quantification of multiple DNA targets using universal PCR primers, avoiding the need for locus-specific amplification primers in the final step.^[8] This first scientific publication, appearing in Nucleic Acids Research in June 2002, described MLPA as a method capable of relatively quantifying up to 40 different DNA sequences in a single reaction using only 20 ng of human genomic DNA.^[8] Early proof-of-concept experiments in the inaugural study demonstrated MLPA's versatility. The technique successfully detected single-nucleotide differences, such as the common ΔF508 mutation in the CFTR gene associated with cystic fibrosis, by incorporating a mismatch in the probe design that prevented ligation in wild-type samples.^[8] Additionally, it reliably identified copy number variations, including deletions and duplications in exons of the DMD gene, which are implicated in over 60% of Duchenne muscular dystrophy cases; the assay's reproducibility allowed detection of a single extra copy of a target sequence per diploid genome by comparing peak areas in capillary electrophoresis.^[8] These initial validations highlighted MLPA's potential for precise relative quantification without absolute calibration standards.^[8]

Key Milestones and Commercialization

Following the initial description of MLPA in 2002, MRC-Holland commercialized the technique through its SALSA MLPA reagent kits, launched in the early 2000s to facilitate routine laboratory implementation for copy number variation (CNV) detection. These kits provided standardized probes and reagents, enabling multiplex analysis of up to 60 targets per reaction and supporting applications in hereditary disorders and oncology. By offering customizable probemixes for specific genes, such as those associated with spinal muscular atrophy (SMN1/SMN2) and breast cancer (BRCA1/BRCA2), MRC-Holland established itself as the primary commercial provider, with over 350 assays available by the mid-2010s.^[9]^[2] A significant milestone occurred in 2005 with the introduction of methylation-specific MLPA (MS-MLPA), which extended the technique to simultaneously assess DNA methylation status alongside CNVs using HhaI digestion, as first described by Nygren et al. This variant proved particularly valuable for imprinting disorders like Prader-Willi/Angelman syndromes, broadening MLPA's utility in epigenetics. In the 2010s, automation advanced with the release of Coffalyser.Net software around 2011, a free tool developed by MRC-Holland for fragment analysis, quality control, and dosage quotient calculations from capillary electrophoresis data, streamlining workflows in diagnostic labs.^[10]^[11]^[12] The 2020s brought further innovation with the launch of digitalMLPA in November 2020, combining traditional MLPA probes with next-generation sequencing (NGS) for high-throughput CNV quantification of up to 1,000 targets per reaction, using as little as 20 ng of DNA. Initial assays targeted hereditary cancers, such as the D001 panel covering 28 genes, and by 2022, oncology-specific kits for multiple myeloma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia were released, enhancing precision in tumor profiling. This evolution addressed limitations in probe capacity and sample multiplexing, supporting up to 192 samples per run.^[13]^[14] MLPA's adoption accelerated in clinical settings, with integration into guidelines for CNV detection. By 2025, the technique had been featured in thousands of peer-reviewed publications, underscoring its role in diagnostics for conditions like Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Lynch syndrome. Commercially, MRC-Holland's kits have driven cost efficiencies through multiplexing; as of 2024, reagent kits for 100 reactions cost approximately €1,416 (about €14 per sample), making MLPA accessible for high-volume testing compared to earlier single-target approaches.^[15]

Principle and Procedure

Probe Design and Components

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) relies on synthetic oligonucleotide probes designed to hybridize specifically to target DNA sequences. Each probe is composed of two adjacent half-probes: a left probe oligonucleotide (LPO) and a right probe oligonucleotide (RPO). The LPO includes a 5' universal primer sequence and a target-specific sequence at its 3' end, while the RPO features a target-specific sequence at its 5' end, a variable stuffer fragment, and a 3' universal primer sequence; the LPO is approximately 40-50 nucleotides long, while the RPO ranges from 50 to 450 nucleotides long due to the variable stuffer fragment, with the combined target-specific regions spanning 50-70 nucleotides to ensure stable hybridization under stringent conditions.^[1]^[16] These half-probes anneal adjacently to the target DNA, and ligation occurs only if there is perfect complementarity at the junction site, allowing MLPA to detect single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or mismatches that prevent efficient joining. A single MLPA reaction can accommodate 40-60 probes targeting distinct loci, each with unique amplification product lengths ranging from 130 to 480 base pairs, achieved through stuffer fragments of varying sizes (19-370 nucleotides) derived from non-target sequences like M13 phage DNA. Unlike methylation-specific variants, standard MLPA probes require no bisulfite conversion, as they directly hybridize to native genomic DNA.^[1]^[16] Probe design prioritizes ligation efficiency by selecting target sequences with melting temperatures above 65°C and avoiding genomic regions prone to copy number variations for control purposes. Stuffer fragments are engineered with incremental length differences of 3-9 base pairs between probes to enable clear separation of amplification products via capillary electrophoresis. Control probes, typically 5 or more per reaction, target stable reference loci on different chromosomes to facilitate normalization during data analysis. Commercial MLPA kits from providers like MRC-Holland supply pre-designed probe sets optimized for these parameters.^[1]^[16]

Ligation, Amplification, and Detection Steps

The MLPA procedure begins with the denaturation and hybridization of the sample DNA. Typically, 100-200 ng of purified genomic DNA from the patient sample is denatured at 95°C for 1 minute to separate the double-stranded DNA into single strands. This is followed by hybridization with a set of up to 45-50 MLPA probes, each consisting of two adjacent half-probes (left and right probe oligonucleotides) that bind to contiguous target sequences on the DNA. The hybridization occurs at 60°C for 16-20 hours (overnight) to ensure specific annealing, with no mismatches tolerated at the junction site for subsequent ligation.^[17]^[16] In the ligation step, the adjacent half-probes that have successfully hybridized to the target DNA are joined together by a thermostable DNA ligase enzyme, such as Ligase-65, which requires perfect complementarity at the ligation site for activity. This enzymatic reaction, performed at an elevated temperature (around 54°C) to maintain specificity, covalently links the probe halves into a single contiguous oligonucleotide only if they are bound to the target sequence; unbound or mismatched probes remain unligated and are excluded from further amplification. The number of ligated probes directly corresponds to the quantity of target DNA present, enabling relative quantification. Ligation specificity is enhanced by the probe design, where the right probe oligonucleotide includes a variable-length stuffer sequence to distinguish amplicons later.^[17]^[1] Following ligation, the ligated probes are exponentially amplified using a single pair of universal primers in a multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR). One primer is typically fluorescently labeled (e.g., with FAM), and the reaction involves 30-35 cycles of denaturation (95°C), annealing (60°C), and extension (72°C) to generate amplicons of 100-500 base pairs in length. The amplicon sizes differ due to the unique stuffer sequences in each probe, allowing up to 50 distinct products to be resolved without interference; non-ligated probes do not amplify, as they lack the complete primer-binding sites. This step requires no prior separation of probes, simplifying the workflow.^[17]^[1]^[16] The final detection step involves separating the fluorescently labeled PCR amplicons by size using capillary electrophoresis on an automated sequencer, such as the ABI 3730 or 3100 Genetic Analyzer, under denaturing conditions. The instrument detects the fluorescence signals, producing an electropherogram where each peak corresponds to a specific probe's amplicon, with peak heights or areas proportional to the amount of target DNA. This raw data provides the quantitative signals for subsequent analysis, with resolution sufficient to distinguish fragments differing by as little as 2-3 base pairs.^[17]^[1]

Data Analysis

Dosage Quotient Analysis

Dosage quotient (DQ) analysis serves as the primary interpretive method in multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for identifying copy number variations (CNVs) by normalizing patient sample probe signals relative to those from reference samples, thereby highlighting deviations that indicate deletions or duplications. The DQ for a specific probe i in a patient sample is calculated as the median of pairwise ratios across reference probes z, using the formula:

DQ_{i} = \median_z \left( \frac{S_{\text{patient},i} / S_{\text{reference},i}}{S_{\text{patient},z} / S_{\text{reference},z}} \right)

where S_{\text{patient},i} is the signal intensity for probe i in the patient sample, S_{\text{reference},i} is the corresponding signal in the reference sample, and the denominator normalizes for variations in overall signal strength using signals from reference probes z targeting known diploid genomic regions. Expected DQ values approximate 1 for normal diploid copy number, 0.5 for heterozygous deletions, 1.5 for heterozygous duplications, and 0 or 2 for homozygous deletions or duplications, respectively, though actual values may vary slightly due to technical noise. In practice, DQ analysis is performed using specialized software such as Coffalyser.Net from MRC-Holland, which automates normalization and requires at least three normal control samples with confirmed diploid status to establish reference baselines and reduce variability. Variant calls are typically made when DQs fall outside thresholds of 0.7 for deletions (DQ < 0.7) or 1.3 for duplications (DQ > 1.3), corresponding to deviations of approximately ±0.3 from the normal value of 1, with adjustments possible based on probemix-specific validation. For sex chromosomes, normalization accounts for X and Y differences through dedicated probes or pseudo-autosomal region signals, ensuring accurate diploid assumptions for autosomal probes while flagging potential sex-specific anomalies via quality metrics. For instance, in analysis of the DMD gene associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a DQ of approximately 0.5 for a specific exon probe, such as exon 49, indicates a heterozygous deletion, as observed in carrier screening where normalized signals deviate consistently from reference controls.^[18]

Relative Ploidy Calculation

Relative ploidy calculation in multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) involves aggregating dosage quotients (DQs) from multiple chromosome-specific probes to estimate overall copy number variations, such as aneuploidies, by comparing the sample's signal intensities to those of a diploid reference.^[19]^[20] This approach leverages the relative quantification inherent in MLPA to infer ploidy levels, where a diploid state yields an average DQ near 1.0, a trisomy approximates 1.5, and a monosomy approaches 0.5 across the probes for the affected chromosome.^[21] For instance, in trisomy 21, the average DQ for probes targeting chromosome 21 typically ranges from 1.35 to 1.75, indicating an extra copy.^[20] The method entails calculating the average or median DQ values for all probes specific to a given chromosome, often using software like Coffalyser.Net to normalize these aggregates against reference probes from unaffected diploid chromosomes or samples.^[22] This normalization accounts for run-to-run variations and ensures robust estimation; for example, the median relative peak areas of chromosome-specific probes are divided by the median of reference probes, yielding a ploidy ratio that deviates significantly in aneuploid samples (e.g., mean DQ of 1.38 for trisomy 21 probes).^[21] Mosaicism is detected when aggregate DQs fall between 0.5 and 1.5 but exhibit high variability across probes, with MLPA reliably identifying high-level mosaicism (≥20-30%) through averaged copy numbers, though low-level cases may require confirmatory methods like FISH.^[20] Adjustments for sex chromosomes incorporate sex-matched controls and separate analyses for X and Y probes; in females, X chromosome DQs average ~1.0 relative to autosomes, while in males, X DQs are ~0.5 and Y DQs ~1.0, with thresholds adjusted accordingly (e.g., >1.3 for duplications).^[21] Software such as Coffalyser.Net applies statistical thresholds, typically flagging trisomy if the aggregate DQ exceeds 1.3 and monosomy if below 0.7, with 95% confidence intervals derived from median absolute deviations to validate calls.^[22] These thresholds are calibrated using large cohorts of known samples to minimize false positives. In prenatal aneuploidy screening, relative ploidy calculation using MLPA efficiently flags deviations in chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X, and Y; for example, a study of amniotic fluid samples identified trisomy 21 in 7 cases and trisomy 18 in 6 cases through elevated aggregate DQs for the respective probes, confirming 100% concordance with FISH validation.^[20]

Applications

Clinical Diagnostics

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) has become a cornerstone in clinical diagnostics for detecting copy number variations (CNVs) associated with genetic disorders, offering rapid and reliable results from various sample types such as amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (CVS). In prenatal diagnosis, MLPA enables the swift identification of common aneuploidies, including trisomies 13, 18, and 21, typically within 2-3 days, facilitating timely decision-making for pregnancies at risk.^[23] It is particularly valuable for detecting microdeletions, such as the 22q11.2 deletion in DiGeorge syndrome, where MLPA probes target specific loci to confirm submicroscopic imbalances in fetal DNA from invasive procedures.^[24] This approach complements traditional karyotyping by providing higher resolution for targeted regions without the need for cell culture, making it suitable for urgent cases.^[23] In postnatal diagnostics, MLPA excels at exon-level CNV detection in monogenic disorders, aiding in the confirmation of diagnoses and carrier screening. For Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies (DMD/BMD), MLPA analyzes all 79 exons of the DMD gene to identify large deletions or duplications, which account for 60-70% of cases, with high sensitivity for multi-exon changes.^[25] Similarly, for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) carrier screening, MLPA quantifies SMN1 and SMN2 copy numbers to detect homozygous deletions in exon 7 of SMN1, which identifies affected individuals (0 copies) and carriers (1 copy). However, it cannot distinguish rare carriers with two copies on the same chromosome from non-carriers.^[26] In hereditary antithrombin deficiency, MLPA probes for the SERPINC1 gene reveal large deletions that sequencing might miss, supporting thrombophilia risk assessment.^[27] In oncology, MLPA is routinely applied to detect tumor suppressor gene deletions, such as in the RB1 gene for retinoblastoma, where it identifies germline and somatic CNVs contributing to biallelic inactivation.^[28] Clinical guidelines, including those from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), recommend MLPA as part of genetic testing protocols for retinoblastoma to guide management and family counseling, particularly for heritable cases.^[29] This method's utility extends to other cancers by screening for CNVs in key loci, enhancing diagnostic precision in pediatric and adult tumors. MLPA's clinical throughput allows processing up to 96 samples per day in standard workflows, with a sensitivity exceeding 95% for deletions spanning more than one exon, making it an efficient first-line tool in diagnostic laboratories.^[9] Dosage quotient analysis from MLPA data supports these diagnoses by quantifying relative copy numbers, though detailed methods are covered elsewhere.^[4]

Research and Emerging Uses

MLPA has been employed in gene editing research to validate CRISPR/Cas9-induced insertions, deletions (indels), and copy number variations (CNVs) in model organisms. In a study on rice, a modified MLPA-based method successfully detected both on-target and off-target mutations generated by CRISPR/Cas9, as well as naturally occurring indels as small as 1 bp and single nucleotide substitutions, enabling zygosity determination in mutant lines.^[30] This approach offers a cost-effective alternative to sequencing for high-throughput screening in plant functional genomics and breeding programs.^[30] In population genetics, MLPA facilitates screening large cohorts for rare CNVs associated with complex traits, such as those implicated in psychiatric disorders. A multiplex assay validated against MLPA identified recurrent CNVs at schizophrenia risk loci (e.g., 1q21.1, 16p11.2, 3q29) in 514 patients, revealing a carrier frequency of approximately 2.5% and demonstrating the method's utility for population-level risk assessment.^[31] Similarly, improved MLPA variants have screened schizophrenia cohorts for CNVs in regions like 15q11.2, supporting the role of these structural variants in disease susceptibility.^[32] Emerging applications of MLPA include digitalMLPA (dMLPA), which integrates next-generation sequencing (NGS) for absolute CNV quantification without relying on reference samples. In dMLPA, probe amplicons are sequenced to count reads directly, enabling detection of CNAs in genes like those altered in T- and B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia with 98.9% sensitivity across 67 patient samples.^[33] This hybrid workflow combines MLPA's targeted multiplexing (up to 1,000 loci) with NGS's precision, addressing limitations in traditional MLPA's relative quantification and expanding utility in low-input scenarios.^[33]^[7] MLPA has also shown promise in pathogen detection for infectious diseases, particularly through stuffer-free designs for rapid identification of drug-resistant strains. A multiplex MLPA assay simultaneously detected Gram-positive pathogens (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecium) and resistance genes (e.g., mecA, vanA) in clinical isolates, achieving detection limits as low as 100 fg of DNA within 8 hours.^[34] Another MLPA-based method identified ten bacterial pathogens in a single reaction, supporting epidemiological surveillance in polymicrobial infections.^[35] Recent case studies highlight MLPA's role in pharmacogenomics, focusing on CNVs in drug metabolism genes. A 2023 analysis of cytochrome P450 genes in 154 Vietnamese individuals used MLPA to profile CNVs in CYP2D6, CYP2A6, and others, identifying duplications that influence drug response variability and informing personalized medicine strategies in diverse populations.^[36] For intronic structural variants in rare diseases, MLPA has complemented NGS in resolving complex cases, such as non-coding alterations contributing to diagnostic yields in undiagnosed cohorts, though integration with long-read sequencing enhances precision for deep intronic events.

Variants

MS-MLPA

MS-MLPA, developed in 2005, is a methylation-specific variant of multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) designed for the simultaneous detection of copy number variations (CNVs) and CpG island methylation status across multiple genomic loci. This method integrates methylation sensitivity into the standard MLPA framework by incorporating a restriction enzyme that targets unmethylated DNA sequences, enabling the differentiation of epigenetic modifications without requiring DNA bisulfite treatment. The technique was first described as capable of analyzing up to 40 sequences in a single reaction, providing a robust tool for combined genomic and epigenomic profiling.^[37] The procedure modifies standard MLPA by adding a methylation-sensitive digestion step post-hybridization. After denaturing genomic DNA and hybridizing it with locus-specific probes overnight at 60°C, a combined ligation and digestion reaction occurs at 49°C for 30 minutes using the enzyme HhaI, which specifically cleaves unmethylated CCGG sites. Probes are engineered with an HhaI recognition sequence in one half-probe, positioned adjacent to the target CpG site; unmethylated targets allow HhaI to digest the probe-DNA hybrid, inhibiting ligation and PCR amplification, resulting in no signal. In contrast, methylated CpGs block HhaI activity, permitting probe ligation and generating an amplification signal proportional to the methylated allele's abundance. To derive both CNV and methylation data, dosage quotients (DQ) for copy number are calculated by normalizing methylation-sensitive probe signals against non-methylation-sensitive reference probes or parallel mock-digested controls, while the methylation index is determined as the ratio of the methylated signal (from the digested sample) to the normalized total signal, yielding the methylation percentage (with thresholds like >10% indicating aberrations). This single-tube approach thus captures signals for both parameters from methylated targets.^[37] MS-MLPA finds particular utility in diagnosing imprinting disorders involving epigenetic dysregulation. For Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) and Angelman syndrome (AS), it targets the SNRPN promoter on chromosome 15q11.2, detecting abnormal methylation patterns—such as paternal-only methylation in PWS or maternal-only in AS—alongside deletions or duplications in the same reaction, with high sensitivity for methylation defects, such as >99% for PWS and ~80% for AS. In Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), the method assesses the 11p15.5 imprinted region, identifying epimutations like hypomethylation at the H19/IGF2 intergenic center 1 (IC1) or hypermethylation at the KCNQ1OT1:TSS differential methylation region (IC2), as well as associated CNVs such as microdeletions, all within one assay for comprehensive imprinting defect detection. These applications highlight MS-MLPA's efficiency in pinpointing epimutations without additional assays.^[38]^[39]^[40] Key advantages of MS-MLPA include its circumvention of bisulfite conversion, which often leads to DNA degradation and incomplete conversion, and its multiplexing capacity for 20-40 CpG sites or loci per reaction, facilitating high-throughput analysis of complex epigenetic landscapes in clinical samples like paraffin-embedded tissues. This combination of simplicity, sensitivity, and dual-output capability positions MS-MLPA as a preferred method for integrated CNV and methylation screening in imprinting-related conditions.^[37]

iMLPA

iMLPA, or inverse multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, is a specialized variant of MLPA developed for the high-throughput genotyping of genomic inversions, particularly those flanked by inverted repeats at the breakpoints. This method addresses limitations of traditional PCR-based approaches in repetitive genomic regions by integrating inverse PCR principles with MLPA's multiplexing capabilities. In iMLPA, probe pairs are designed to target the unique junction sequences created by inversion events, reversing the standard probe orientation to distinguish between reference and inverted alleles through specific ligation at these junctions. One half-probe includes a variable-length stuffer sequence for size-based differentiation during detection, while the other half-probe is fixed and contains the universal primer binding site, enabling efficient multiplexing while maintaining specificity for inversion detection.^[41]^[42] The procedure in iMLPA closely parallels standard MLPA but incorporates an initial step of DNA fragmentation and circularization to expose inversion junctions. Genomic DNA is digested with restriction enzymes such as EcoRI or HindIII to produce fragments encompassing the inversion breakpoints, followed by self-ligation using T4 DNA ligase to form circular molecules. These circles are then hybridized with two probe pairs per inversion: one set for the reference orientation (O1) and another for the inverted orientation (O2). The inverted annealing allows probes to bind adjacently across the junction, where ligation by a thermostable ligase detects any gaps or overlaps in the target sequence arising from the inversion structure. Successful ligation products are amplified via PCR with fluorescently labeled universal primers and resolved by capillary electrophoresis, with amplicon lengths varying due to the stuffer sequences (typically 100-500 bp apart) to permit simultaneous analysis of multiple targets in a single reaction. This approach achieves high specificity, as non-matching orientations prevent probe adjacency and ligation.^[41]^[42] iMLPA has proven valuable for genotyping polymorphic inversions in population-scale studies, enabling the analysis of structural variants that influence gene expression and adaptation. In a landmark application, the method genotyped 24 inversions across 551 individuals from seven worldwide populations, yielding 12,769 reliable genotypes with 98.5% success and revealing evolutionary patterns, such as higher inversion frequencies in certain ancestries. While optimized for human genomic inversions (ranging from ~4.5 kb to 2 Mb), the technique's junction-targeting design holds potential for analogous applications in viral genomes, where recombination or inversion-like events create detectable junctions, though direct uses in HIV drug resistance genotyping (e.g., for small indels in resistance genes) remain unexplored. Similarly, while standard MLPA variants support forensic short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, iMLPA's inversion focus has not been extended to STR genotyping.^[41] Specific limitations of iMLPA include reduced multiplexing capacity compared to standard MLPA, typically supporting 20-40 probes due to the need for dual probe pairs per target and constraints from repetitive sequences. Probe design is more complex, requiring precise mapping of breakpoints, avoidance of nearby SNPs or indels that could disrupt ligation, and selection of suitable restriction sites, which can limit applicability to inversions with short inverted repeats (<25-30 kb). The method also demands higher DNA input for circularization (100-150 ng) and may require validation with PCR for low-frequency variants, with reported error rates of 0.1-0.9% primarily from ambiguous electropherograms in heterozygous samples.^[41]^[42]

Other Extensions

Digital MLPA (dMLPA), developed in the late 2010s, integrates traditional MLPA with next-generation sequencing (NGS) to enable absolute quantification of up to 1,200 DNA targets in a single reaction, bypassing the need for reference samples and accommodating low-input DNA samples as little as 20 ng.^[43]^[7] This extension enhances sensitivity for copy number variation (CNV) detection in scenarios like prenatal diagnostics and oncology, where sample availability is limited.^[7] Reverse transcription MLPA (RT-MLPA) extends the technique to RNA analysis by first reverse-transcribing RNA to complementary DNA (cDNA), followed by standard MLPA on the cDNA to quantify gene expression levels for up to 45 transcripts in a single reaction. This variant is particularly useful for studying gene expression patterns in low-input samples, such as formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, and has applications in diagnosing conditions like cardiac allograft rejection, subtyping lymphomas, and screening immune gene expression in model organisms like zebrafish.^[44]^[45]^[46] SNP-MLPA adapts MLPA probes for allele-specific ligation, allowing high-throughput genotyping of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) by incorporating mismatched bases at SNP sites to prevent ligation in non-matching alleles.^[6] This variant has been applied in population genetics and pharmacogenomics to screen multiple SNPs simultaneously, offering a cost-effective alternative to array-based methods for up to 50 loci per assay.^[47] MLPA-NGS hybrids couple MLPA enrichment with subsequent NGS to confirm and refine CNV calls, particularly in heterogeneous samples, and extend to point mutation detection in cancer profiling.^[48] In oncology, this approach has facilitated comprehensive mutation screening in genes like BRCA1/2 and TP53, improving resolution for intragenic rearrangements and low-frequency variants in tumor DNA.^[43] Recent innovations (2023–2025) include customized MLPA probe mixes for non-human genomes, such as in plants, where they validate CRISPR/Cas9 edits by detecting targeted indels and CNVs in crops like rice.^[49] These adaptations support agricultural genomics but face scalability limitations due to probe design complexity for polyploid plant genomes and the need for species-specific optimization.^[50]

Advantages and Limitations

Strengths

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) offers high throughput capabilities, enabling the simultaneous analysis of up to 50-60 genomic targets in a single reaction, which significantly reduces the need for multiple independent assays.^[51]^[52] This multiplexing is facilitated by the probe design and ligation-based amplification procedure, allowing efficient detection of copy number variations (CNVs) across diverse loci. Furthermore, MLPA supports processing up to 96 samples in parallel using standard 96-well formats, making it suitable for large-scale screening in clinical and research settings.^[4]^[53] The technique demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for detecting single-exon CNVs, serving as a reference method in validation studies of other techniques.^[54]^[55] It is robust even with low DNA input, requiring only 50 ng per reaction, which minimizes sample consumption while maintaining reliable quantification of copy number differences as small as one copy.^[52] This precision extends to distinguishing sequences differing by a single nucleotide, enhancing its utility for precise CNV delineation.^[52] MLPA is cost-effective, with reagent costs approximately €14-20 per sample for a full reaction kit supporting 100 assays, and overall per-sample expenses typically ranging from $20-50 when accounting for standard laboratory operations.^[52] Results are obtained rapidly, often within 24-48 hours from sample to analysis, due to its streamlined workflow involving ligation, amplification, and capillary electrophoresis.^[2] No specialized equipment beyond a standard thermocycler for PCR and a capillary electrophoresis system—commonly available in molecular biology labs—is required, lowering barriers to implementation.^[52]^[56] MLPA exhibits versatility across sample types, including formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues and prenatal specimens, where it performs reliably despite potential DNA degradation.^[57]^[58] It is considered a gold standard for exon-level CNV detection, alongside select microarray approaches, and aligns with recommendations from bodies like the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) for targeted CNV analysis in clinical diagnostics.^[59]^[60]

Weaknesses and Comparisons

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is inherently target-specific, relying on predefined probes that detect copy number variations (CNVs) only at designed loci, thereby missing novel CNVs or structural variants (SVs) outside these targets.^[61] This limitation restricts MLPA to approximately 50 probes per reaction due to reliance on length-based separation of ligation products, making it unsuitable for comprehensive genome-wide analysis.^[6] Additionally, MLPA cannot identify copy-neutral events such as loss of heterozygosity or balanced translocations, as it primarily quantifies gains or losses in genetic material without assessing rearrangement details.^[62] False positives can arise from single nucleotide variants (SNVs) or small insertions/deletions (INDELs) in probe-binding sites, which disrupt ligation and mimic exon deletions; for instance, in antithrombin deficiency cases, three such polymorphisms led to misdiagnosis of exon losses.^[63] MLPA also exhibits reduced sensitivity for intronic or large SVs, failing to detect events like retrotransposon insertions in non-coding regions; for example, such intronic defects account for about 1% of cases in antithrombin deficiency.^[61] Detection of mosaicism is another weakness, with sensitivity thresholds around 22-40% for duplications or deletions, rendering it unreliable for low-level mosaicism below 20-30%, where techniques like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) perform better.^[64] Furthermore, MLPA results are highly susceptible to sample impurities or normal cell contamination, potentially exacerbating errors in heterogeneous samples like tumors.^[9] In comparisons, MLPA offers advantages over traditional karyotyping for detecting small CNVs, providing higher resolution (down to single exons) and faster turnaround times while remaining cost-effective for targeted testing.^[6] It is comparable to chromosomal microarrays for interrogating known loci but at a lower cost and with simpler workflow, though microarrays enable broader genome coverage.^[62] However, MLPA is inferior to next-generation sequencing (NGS) for identifying de novo variants or complex SVs, as NGS better characterizes intronic and novel rearrangements that MLPA overlooks.^[61] Similarly, for absolute quantification in conditions like spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), droplet digital PCR (dPCR) demonstrates superior accuracy, with 2024 studies showing 94.4% concordance to MLPA but only 4 inaccuracies versus 37 for MLPA in 733 samples, highlighting dPCR's edge in clinical scenarios requiring precise copy number assessment.^[65] To mitigate these weaknesses, confirmatory testing with NGS or long-range PCR is recommended for MLPA-positive results, particularly in cases suspecting probe-interfering variants or intronic events, as MLPA is not ideal as a standalone tool for whole-genome SV analysis.^[61]^[63] Emerging approaches like digital MLPA (dMLPA), as of 2025, show promise in enhancing detection of low-level alterations and chromosomal changes, potentially addressing some limitations in mosaicism and resolution.^[66]

References

[1]
Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ...
Here, we introduce a related technique named multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) that is more sensitive and easier to use. As in MAPH, added ...
[2]
MLPA: Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification
MLPA is a simple, multiplex PCR technique that uses a single primer pair to amplify up to 60 probes, each with a unique genomic target and length.
[3]
Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ...
We describe a new method for relative quantification of 40 different DNA sequences in an easy to perform reaction requiring only 20 ng of human DNA.
[4]
Use of the MLPA Assay in the Molecular Diagnosis of Gene Copy ...
Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) assay is a recently developed technique able to evidence variations in the copy number of several human ...
[5]
Advances of Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification ...
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a multiplex copy number analysis tool which is routinely used to detect large mutations in genetic ...Mlpa-Based Techniques · Application Of Mlpa In... · Snp Detection
[6]
Relative quantification of 40 nucleic acid sequences by multiplex ...
We describe a new method for relative quantification of 40 different DNA sequences in an easy to perform reaction requiring only 20 ng of human DNA.
[7]
Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA)
May 1, 2025 · MLPA is a sensitive technique that allows quantification of nucleic acid sequences, quickly and efficiently. It is performed in many laboratories worldwide.Enjoying This Article? Get... · 3-Ligation · Advantages Of Mlpa<|control11|><|separator|>
[8]
MS-MLPA Technique - MRC Holland
MS-MLPA is a variant of the SALSA MLPA technique. With MS-MLPA, it is possible to semi-quantitatively profile methylation for multiple targets simultaneously.Missing: introduction | Show results with:introduction
[9]
(PDF) Analysis of MLPA Data Using Novel Software Coffalyser.NET ...
PDF | On Nov 9, 2011, Jordy Coffa and others published Analysis of MLPA Data Using Novel Software Coffalyser.NET by MRC-Holland | Find, read and cite all ...
[10]
Coffalyser.Net - MRC Holland
Coffalyser.Net™ is free, user-friendly MLPA analysis software developed and supported by MRC Holland to help you get the most out of your data.
[11]
None
### Summary of digitalMLPA Launch and Milestones
[12]
MRC Holland launches two digital MLPA probe mixes - CAP TODAY
MRC Holland released two assays, the Salsa digitalMLPA Probemix D006 Multiple Myeloma and Salsa digitalMLPA Probemix D007 Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.
[13]
Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of ... - PubMed
These professional standards will guide the evaluation of constitutional CNVs and encourage consistency and transparency across clinical laboratories.Missing: MLPA 2010
[14]
[PDF] What are the main advantages and limitations of MLPA? - MRC Holla
MLPA reactions are cost-effective. The current price (2024) for 100 MLPA reactions is € 1416. This price includes all reagents (probemix, buffers, ligase, ...
[15]
MLPA Technique - MRC Holland
An MLPA probe consists of two parts: a left and a right probe oligonucleotide (LPO and RPO). The LPO and RPO contain PCR primer and DNA hybridisation sequences.Missing: history timeline
[16]
https://www.mrcholland.com/technology/mlpa/technique
[17]
Prenatal Diagnosis of Dystrophin Gene Mutations using Multiplex ...
A, B: MLPA SALSA P034-B1 showed a dosage quotient (DQ) ratio of 0.5 in Exon 49-50 (heterozygous deletion) in both the pre-natal sample and the study subject. C: ...Missing: example | Show results with:example
[18]
(PDF) Rapid, high throughput prenatal detection of aneuploidy using ...
Aug 9, 2025 · Quantitative MLPA analysis of normal samples. The quantitative results are represented by box plots with median relative copy numbers; 50 ...
[19]
MLPA as a genetic assay for the prenatal diagnosis of common ...
Jul 28, 2022 · The aim of this study is to introduce the MLPA technique as a method for the prenatal detection of aneuploidy in Egypt by its validation compared to the FISH ...Missing: ploidy calculation
[20]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9334468/
[21]
[PDF] Analysis of MLPA Data Using Novel Software Coffalyser.NET by ...
Nov 9, 2011 · Introduction. Genetic knowledge has increased tremendously in the last years, filling gaps and giving answers that were inaccessible before.
[22]
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) in prenatal ...
Aug 10, 2025 · MLPA gave conclusive results in 2330 (97.1%) CVS and 1417 (92.9%) AF samples. MLPA and G-banding showed concordant results except for five CVS ...
[23]
The First Case Report in Italy of Di George Syndrome Detected by ...
Aug 5, 2015 · Computer-assisted prenatal aneuploidy screening for chromosome 13, 18, 21, X and Y based on multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification ...
[24]
(PDF) Identification of deletions and duplications of the DMD gene in ...
MLPA analysis thus proved to be an useful tool for the analysis of both affected males and females carriers of DMD rearrangements in cases in which the disease- ...
[25]
Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) via MLPA of SMN1 and SMN2
MLPA will not detect sequence variants in SMN1 and SMN2 genes. This test cannot distinguish whether SMN1 copies are on the same or opposite chromosomes and will ...Missing: postnatal BMD antithrombin
[26]
Detection of large deletion mutations in the SERPINC1 ... - PubMed
Detection of large deletion mutations in the SERPINC1 gene causing hereditary antithrombin deficiency by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA).Missing: postnatal DMD BMD SMA carrier
[27]
Delving Into Retinoblastoma Genetics: Discovery of Novel Mutations ...
May 2, 2025 · In this study, we aim to identify RB1 mutations in retinoblastoma patients using Sanger sequencing in combination with multiplex ligation‐dependent probe ...
[28]
[PDF] Consensus Document for Management of Retinoblastoma
This consensus document for management of Retinoblastoma summarizes the genetics, staging, diagnostic work-up and modalities of treatment for both intraocular.
[29]
https://www.icmr.gov.in/icmrobject/custom_data/pdf/resource-guidelines/RB_Document.pdf
[30]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-020-03600-5
[31]
Improved Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification (i-MLPA ...
Using i-MLPA, we screened 240 schizophrenia patients for CNVs in 15q11.2 region. ... Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder marked by hallucinations ...
[32]
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280630275_Improved_Multiplex_Ligation-Dependent_Probe_Amplification_i-MLPA_for_rapid_Copy_Number_Variant_CNV_detection
[33]
digitalMLPA: digital Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification
How does digitalMLPA work? digitalMLPA is a PCR-based technique that enables the detection of up to 1200 targeted DNA sequences in a single multiplex reaction.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[34]
https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.201600372
[35]
Methylation-Specific MLPA (MS-MLPA): simultaneous detection of ...
Here we describe a novel robust method: the methylation-specific MLPA (MS-MLPA) that can detect changes in both CpG methylation as well as copy number of up to ...Mlpa Probe Design · Results · Ms-Mlpa With Pws And As
[36]
Practice guidelines for the molecular analysis of Prader-Willi and ...
May 11, 2010 · MS-MLPA (ME028-B1) will also identify IC deletions in PWS and AS cases with an imprinting defect. The kit contains four probes for the SNRPN ...<|separator|>
[37]
ME028 Prader-Willi/Angelman - MRC Holland
SALSA MLPA Probemix ME028 Prader-Willi/Angelman detects copy number variations and methylation status of the 15q11 region. Specifications.
[38]
MS-MLPA is a specific and sensitive technique for detecting ... - Nature
Jan 23, 2008 · This MS-MLPA assay can detect both copy number variations and methylation defects of the 11p15.5 critical region within one single experiment.Missing: original paper
[39]
Evolutionary and functional impact of common polymorphic ... - Nature
Sep 17, 2019 · MLPA and iMLPA inversion genotypes were carefully validated through several analyses and quality controls (Fig. ... Giner-Delgado, C., Villatoro, ...
[40]
Inverse multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (imlpa), an ...
Inverse multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (imlpa), an in ... The technique of inverse MLPA (iMLPA) for the study of genomic inversions ...
[41]
Optimizing multiplex SNP-based data analysis for genotyping of ...
Jul 7, 2014 · We have previously developed a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and large sequence polymorphisms (LSP)-based MLPA assay using a read out ...
[42]
Application of a Multiplex Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification ...
Aug 19, 2023 · Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) has become a standard method for the detection of common copy number aberrations ...Materials And Methods · Mlpa-Ngs Assay · ResultsMissing: steps | Show results with:steps
[43]
An Efficient and Cost-Effective Novel Strategy for Identifying CRISPR ...
Jan 13, 2025 · ... multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification method, and single-strand conformational polymorphism method. However, each of these ...
[44]
A simple, cost-effective, and efficient method for screening CRISPR ...
A simple, cost-effective, and efficient method for screening CRISPR/Cas9 mutants in plants ... multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based method ...
[45]
Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA ... - PubMed
MLPA is a high-throughput method developed to determine the copy number of up to 50 genomic DNA sequences in a single multiplex PCR-based reaction.
[46]
What are the main advantages and limitations of MLPA?
MLPA is a multiplex reaction, meaning one reaction provides information on up to 60 targets, as opposed to conventional PCR where you would need 60 independent ...Missing: publications | Show results with:publications
[47]
Multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA) for rapid ...
Aug 7, 2025 · ... SALSA MLPA centromere kits P181 and P182 as well as with the SALSA MLPA telomere kits P036B and P070 (MRC Holland BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) ...
[48]
Next-Generation Sequencing–Based Detection of Germline Copy ...
... MLPA were included in the analysis. Comparison of the NGS data with the data from MLPA revealed that the sensitivity was 100%, whereas the specificity was 95%.
[49]
[PDF] Accurate clinical detection of exon copy number variants in a ...
Nov 25, 2016 · DECoN detected 24 BRCA exon CNVs, of which 23 were confirmed by MLPA, giving a false discovery rate of 4%. Specificity was. 99.7%. Conclusions: ...
[50]
MLPA: A Rapid, Reliable, and Sensitive Method for Detection ... - NIH
Further, MLPA has significant advantages over other methods such as FISH or array-CGH, based on the fact that it is much less expensive, less labor intensive, ...
[51]
Optimal Fixation Conditions and DNA Extraction Methods for MLPA ...
Jan 31, 2017 · Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is a widely used technique for gene copy number determination, and it has been ...
[52]
2016 - Prenatal Diagnosis - Wiley Online Library
Jul 8, 2016 · It is an accurate, robust, and efficient method for the rapid diagnosis of common aneuploidies and microdeletion syndromes in prenatal samples.
[53]
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA)
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is commonly used to diagnose conditions that are predominantly caused by exon-level copy number ...
[54]
ClinSV: clinical grade structural and copy number variant detection ...
Feb 25, 2021 · MLPA design was attempted for 2 probes for each variant as per standard protocols to allow redundancy in case of probe failure. CNVs not ...
[55]
Usefulness and Limitations of Multiple Ligation-Dependent Probe ...
Mar 6, 2023 · Our study confirms the utility of MLPA to detect SVs in ATD, but also shows some limitations in detecting intronic SVs. MLPA renders imprecise ...Missing: applications | Show results with:applications
[56]
Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA)
Although, MLPA has disadvantages due to its limitations. First, it cannot detect copy neutral loss of heterozygosity. Second, it has limitations on mosaicism ...
[57]
Usefulness and Limitations of Multiple Ligation-Dependent Probe ...
Mar 6, 2023 · Our study confirms the utility of MLPA to detect SVs in ATD, but also shows some limitations in detecting intronic SVs.2. Results · 2.1. Antithrombin... · 2.4. Mlpa False Positives
[58]
Multiplex Ligation-depending Probe Amplification (MLPA) is not ...
Aug 7, 2025 · ... (MLPA) is often used. Here we show that MLPA is less sensitive in detecting low-grade somatic mosaicism than fluorescence in situ ...Missing: false positives
[59]
Comparison of the accuracy of multiplex digital PCR versus ...
Jan 15, 2024 · The dPCR technique exhibits better accuracy than MLPA and is qualified for SMA genetic testing across various clinical scenarios. Keywords: ...