Scientific ReportsGenomicsPeer-reviewed journal article
Evaluation of pre-analytical factors affecting plasma DNA analysis
Havell MarkusiD, Tania Contente‐CuomoiD, Maria FarooqiD, Winnie S. LiangiD, Mitesh J. BoradiD, Shivan SivakumariD, Simon GollinsiD, Nhan L. TraniD, Harshil DhruviD, Michael E. BerensiD, Alan Haruo BryceiD, Aleksandar SekulićiD, Antoni RibasiD, Jeffrey M. TrentiD, Patricia Mucci LoRussoiD, Muhammed MurtazaiD
Abstract
Pre-analytical factors can significantly affect circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis. However, there are few robust methods to rapidly assess sample quality and the impact of pre-analytical processing. To address this gap and to evaluate effects of DNA extraction methods and blood collection tubes on cfDNA yield and fragment size, we developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay with 5 short and 4 long amplicons targeting single copy genomic loci (mean amplicon size: 71 bp and 471 bp respectively). Using this assay, we compared performance of 7 cfDNA extraction kits and found cfDNA yield and fragment size varies significantly between them. We also compared 3 blood collection protocols used to collect plasma samples from 23 healthy volunteers (EDTA tubes processed within 1 hour and Cell-free DNA BCT tubes at ambient temperature processed within 24 hours and 72 hours of collection). To assess whether cell-stabilizing preservative in BCT tubes introduced noise in cfDNA, we performed digital targeted sequencing. We found no significant differences in cfDNA yield, fragment size and background sequencing noise between these protocols. In 219 clinical samples tested for quality using the ddPCR assay, cfDNA fragment size was significantly shorter in plasma samples immediately processed for ctDNA analysis compared to archived samples, suggesting background DNA contributed by lysed peripheral blood cells. In summary, we describe a multiplexed ddPCR approach that enables cfDNA quality assessment and could inform the design of future circulating tumor DNA studies.\n\nGene namesNone
- Citations
- 156
- FWCI
- 5.58
- Field percentile
- top 2%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- A new method for improving extraction efficiency and purity of urine and plasma cell-free DNA
Selena Y. Lin, Luo Yue, … Ying‐Hsiu Su·DiagnosticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 3, 2021
- Standardized droplet preamplification method for downstream circulating cell-free DNA analysis
Colin Skeen, Erica D. Pratt·BioTechniquesPeer-reviewed·Mar 4, 2025
- The effect of pre-analytical and physiological variables on cell-free DNA fragmentation.
Ymke van der Pol, Norbert Moldován, … Florent C. Mouliere·Clinical ChemistryPeer-reviewed·Feb 9, 2022
- UltraPrep is a scalable, cost-effective, bead-based method for purifying cell-free DNA
Christopher K. Raymond, Fenella C. Raymond, Kay Hill·PLoS ONEPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2020
- Plasma cfDNA analysis can be facilitated by membrane based filtration of whole blood regardless of additive
Amanda N. Marra, Dirk van den Boom, … Christopher K. Ellison·medRxiv·Jul 5, 2023
- Genome-wide study of the effect of blood collection tubes on the cell-free DNA methylome
Ruben Van Paemel, Andries De Koker, … Katleen De Preter·EpigeneticsPeer-reviewed·Oct 19, 2020