Qualitative and quantitative comparison of cell-free DNA and cell-free fetal DNA isolation by four (semi-)automated extraction methods: impact in two clinical applications: chimerism quantification and noninvasive prenatal diagnosis

Background: Non-invasive molecular analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) became a sensitive biomarker for monitoring organ transplantation or for detection of fetal DNA (cffDNA) in noninvasive prenatal test. In this study, we compared the efficiencies of four (semi)-automated cfDNA isolation instruments using their respective isolation kit: MagNA Pure 24 (Roche (R)), IDEAL (IDSolution (R)), LABTurbo 24 (Taigen (R)) and Chemagic 360 (Perkin Elmer (R)). The cfDNA was isolated from 5 plasma samples and the Rhesus D (RhD)-cffDNA from 5 maternal plasmas. The cfDNA were quantified by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), BIABooster system and QUBIT fluorometer. The cfDNA fragment size profiles were assessed by BIABooster system. Chimerism were quantified by home-made ddPCR and Devyser NGS kit. RhD-cffDNA in maternal plasma were detected between weeks 14 and 24 of amenorrhea using free DNA Fetal RHD Kit (R) (Biorad (R)). Results: Statistical tests have shown differences in DNA yield depending on the isolation procedure and quantification method used. Magna Pure isolates smaller cfDNA fragment size than other extraction methods (90% +/- 9% vs. 74% +/- 8%; p = 0.009). Chimerism was only reliable from LABTurbo 24 extractions using the NGS but not with ddPCR whatever extraction methods. RhD-cffDNA were detected by all isolation methods, although IDEAL and LABTurbo 24 systems seemed more efficient. Conclusions: This comparative study showed a dependency of cfDNA yield depending on isolation procedure and quantification method used. In total, these results suggest that the choice of pre-analytical isolation systems needs to be carefully validated in routine clinical practice.

Automated summary

This study compared the efficiencies of four (semi)-automated cfDNA isolation instruments in isolating cfDNA and RhD-cffDNA, and found differences in DNA yield depending on the isolation procedure and quantification method used. The study suggests that the choice of pre-analytical isolation systems needs to be carefully validated in routine clinical practice.