We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies. Cookie Policy.

Features Partner Sites Information LinkXpress
Sign In
Advertise with Us
LGC Clinical Diagnostics

Download Mobile App




Events

09 Apr 2024 - 12 Apr 2024
15 Apr 2024 - 17 Apr 2024
23 Apr 2024 - 26 Apr 2024

Factors Affecting Plasma DNA Analysis Evaluated

By LabMedica International staff writers
Posted on 21 May 2018
Print article
Image: The RainDrop digital PCR system (Photo courtesy of RainDance Technologies).
Image: The RainDrop digital PCR system (Photo courtesy of RainDance Technologies).
There is vast potential in precision-medicine methods of both detecting and monitoring disease by looking for indications of cancer mutations in cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating in the blood. However, there are many factors that can significantly alter these samples as they are collected and analyzed.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis relies on detection and quantification of these mutations, against a background of cfDNA contributed by peripheral blood cells and other tissues. Total cfDNA and tumor-specific ctDNA levels in plasma vary considerably across cancer patients, cancer types and disease stages as well as during longitudinal follow-up of each patient.

Scientists from the Translational Genomics Research Institute (Phoenix, AZ, USA) designed a multiplexed droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) assay targeting nine single copy genomic loci. They prepared digital PCR reactions and performed thermocycling using DNA Engine Tetrad 2 and they measured droplet fluorescence using RainDrop Digital PCR Sense Instrument and analyzed results using accompanying software. To evaluate whether their ddPCR assay performed as expected, they analyzed known quantities of sheared DNA fragments with predetermined size and compared the results with expected theoretical yields.

Healthy volunteer and clinical plasma samples included in comparison of immediately processed and archived samples were collected. Samples from seven independent clinical cohorts were included in this analysis, including patients diagnosed with melanoma, cholangiocarcinoma and rectal cancer as well as healthy volunteers. For assessment of sequencing performance guided by ddPCR results, the team quantified cfDNA from commercially obtained control plasma samples using ddPCR and prepared whole genome sequencing libraries using ThruPLEX DNA-Seq.

The scientists evaluated effects of DNA extraction methods and blood collection tubes on cfDNA yield and fragment size, and developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay with five short and four long amplicons targeting single copy genomic loci. Using this assay, they compared seven cfDNA extraction kits and found cfDNA yield and fragment size vary significantly. They also compared three blood collection protocols using plasma samples from 23 healthy volunteers (EDTA tubes processed within one hour and Cell-free DNA Blood Collection Tubes processed within 24 and 72 hours) and found no significant differences in cfDNA yield, fragment size and background noise between these protocols. In 219 clinical samples, cfDNA fragments were shorter in plasma samples processed immediately after venipuncture compared to archived samples, suggesting contribution of background DNA by lysed peripheral blood cells.

Muhammed Murtaza, MD, PhD, the senior author of the study, said, “In order for us to rely on sequencing results and evidence of cancer mutations from these samples and to make valid recommendations for treating physicians, we must ensure they have been collected and processed appropriately. We developed this new quality-control assay to ensure we can confirm reliability using a very small volume of a patient’s blood sample.” The study was published on May 9, 2018, in the journal Scientific Reports.

Related Links:
Translational Genomics Research Institute

Platinum Member
COVID-19 Rapid Test
OSOM COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test
One Step HbA1c Measuring System
GREENCARE A1c
Complement 3 (C3) Test
GPP-100 C3 Kit
Gold Member
Xylazine Immunoassay Test
Xylazine ELISA

Print article

Channels

Clinical Chemistry

view channel
Image: Reaching speeds up to 6,000 RPM, this centrifuge forms the basis for a new type of inexpensive, POC biomedical test (Photo courtesy of Duke University)

POC Biomedical Test Spins Water Droplet Using Sound Waves for Cancer Detection

Exosomes, tiny cellular bioparticles carrying a specific set of proteins, lipids, and genetic materials, play a crucial role in cell communication and hold promise for non-invasive diagnostics.... Read more

Hematology

view channel
Image: The low-cost portable device rapidly identifies chemotherapy patients at risk of sepsis (Photo courtesy of 52North Health)

POC Finger-Prick Blood Test Determines Risk of Neutropenic Sepsis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy

Neutropenia, a decrease in neutrophils (a type of white blood cell crucial for fighting infections), is a frequent side effect of certain cancer treatments. This condition elevates the risk of infections,... Read more

Pathology

view channel
Image: The OvaCis Rapid Test discriminates benign from malignant epithelial ovarian cysts (Photo courtesy of INEX)

Intra-Operative POC Device Distinguishes Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Cysts within 15 Minutes

Ovarian cysts represent a significant health issue for women globally, with up to 10% experiencing this condition at some point in their lives. These cysts form when fluid collects within a thin membrane... Read more
Copyright © 2000-2024 Globetech Media. All rights reserved.