4.4 Article

Optimization of Sources of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Variability for Downstream Molecular Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 23, Issue 11, Pages 1545-1552

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.08.007

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study indicates that blood processing and sample storage conditions have an impact on the yield and quality of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) extraction and quantification, which should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) is used increasingly as a cancer biomarker for prognostication, as a correlate for tumor volume, or as input for downstream molecular analysis. Determining optimal blood processing and ccfDNA quantification are crucial for ccfDNA to serve as an accurate biomarker as it moves into the clinical realm. Whole blood was collected from 50 subjects, processed to plasma, and used immediately or frozen at -80 degrees C. Plasma ccfDNA was extracted and concentration was assessed by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR), fluorimetry, and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). For the 24 plasma samples from metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, the variant allele fractions (VAF) of KRAS G12/13 pathogenic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were measured by ddPCR. Using a high-speed (16,000 x g) or slower-speed (4100 x g) second centrifugation step showed no difference in ccfDNA yield or ctDNA VAF. A two- versus three-spin centrifugation protocol also showed no difference in ccfDNA yield or ctDNA VAF. A higher yield was observed from fresh versus frozen plasma by qPCR and fluorimetry, whereas a higher yield was observed for frozen versus fresh plasma by ddPCR, however, no difference was observed in ctDNA VAF. Overall, our findings suggest factors to consider when implementing a ccfDNA extraction and quantification workflow in a research or clinical setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available