4.5 Article

Characterization of DNA lesions associated with cell-free DNA by targeted deep sequencing

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENOMICS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12920-021-01040-8

关键词

Circulating cell-free DNA; Targeted deep sequencing; DNA damages; Cytosine deamination errors

资金

  1. Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant - Korea government (the Ministry of Science and ICT)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy
  3. Ministry of Health Welfare
  4. Ministry of Food and Drug Safety [202011B12-01]
  5. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant - Korean Government (MSIT) [2017M3A9G5060264]
  6. Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) [202011B12-01] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017M3A9G5060264] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies have shown that next-generation sequencing (NGS) can successfully detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in various cancers, leading to improved cancer diagnosis and prognosis. However, the low allelic fraction of ctDNA presents a challenge for sensitive and specific detection of tumor variants in cell-free DNA (cfDNA). This study compared error profiles in cfDNA and cellular genomic DNA (gDNA) to identify DNA damage specific to cfDNA, with findings suggesting an increase in cytosine deamination in cfDNA compared to gDNA, potentially due to DNA damage repair attenuation or cytosine deamination accumulation. These results contribute to a better understanding of cfDNA-associated DNA damage for accurate analysis of somatic variants at low frequencies.
Background Recently, a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based method has been used for the successful detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in various cancer types. Thus, the use of NGS on liquid biopsies will improve cancer diagnosis and prognosis. However, the low-allelic fraction of ctDNA poses a challenge for the sensitive and specific detection of tumor variants in cell-free DNA (cfDNA). To distinguish true variants from false positives, the characteristics of errors that occur during sample preparation and sequencing need to be elucidated. Methods We generated capture-based targeted deep sequencing data from plasma cfDNA and peripheral blood leucocyte (PBL) gDNA to profile background errors. To reveal cfDNA-associated DNA lesions, background error profiles from two sample types were compared in each nucleotide substitution class. Results In this study, we determined the prevalence of single nucleotide substitutions in cfDNA sequencing data to identify DNA damage preferentially associated with cfDNA. On comparing sequencing errors between cfDNA and cellular genomic DNA (gDNA), we observed that the total substitution error rates in cfDNA were significantly higher than those in gDNA. When the substitution errors were divided into 12 substitution error classes, C:G>T:A substitution errors constituted the largest difference between cfDNA and gDNA samples. When the substitution error rates were estimated based on the location of DNA-fragment substitutions, the differences in error rates of most substitution classes between cfDNA and gDNA samples were observed only at the ends of the DNA fragments. In contrast, C:G>T:A substitution errors in the cfDNA samples were not particularly associated with DNA-fragment ends. All observations were verified in an independent dataset. Conclusions Our data suggested that cytosine deamination increased in cfDNA compared to that in cellular gDNA. Such an observation might be due to the attenuation of DNA damage repair before the release of cfDNA and/or the accumulation of cytosine deamination after it. These findings can contribute to a better understanding of cfDNA-associated DNA damage, which will enable the accurate analysis of somatic variants present in cfDNA at an extremely low frequency.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据