OBJECTIVES: Circulating plasma DNA is being increasingly used for biomedical and clinical research as a substrate for genetic testing. However, cell lysis can occur hours after venipuncture when using standard tubes for blood collection, leading to an increase in contaminating cellular DNA that may hinder analysis of circulating plasma DNA. Cell stabilization agents can prevent cellular lysis for several days, reducing the need for immediate plasma preparation after venipuncture, thereby facilitating the ease of blood collection and sample preparation for clinical research. However, the majority of cell stabilizing reagents have not been formally tested for their ability to preserve circulating plasma tumor DNA. DESIGN & METHODS: In this study, we compared the properties of two cell stabilizing reagents, the cell-free DNA BCT tube and the PAXgene tube, by collecting blood samples from metastatic breast cancer patients and measuring genome equivalents of plasma DNA by droplet digital PCR. We compared wild type PIK3CA genome equivalents and also assayed for two PIK3CA hotspot mutations, E545K and H1047R. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that blood stored for 7 days in BCT tubes did not show evidence of cell lysis, whereas PAXgene tubes showed an order of magnitude increase in genome equivalents, indicative of considerable cellular lysis. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that BCT tubes can prevent lysis and cellular release of genomic DNA of blood samples from cancer patients when stored at room temperature, and could therefore be of benefit for blood specimen collections in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVES: Circulating plasma DNA is being increasingly used for biomedical and clinical research as a substrate for genetic testing. However, cell lysis can occur hours after venipuncture when using standard tubes for blood collection, leading to an increase in contaminating cellular DNA that may hinder analysis of circulating plasma DNA. Cell stabilization agents can prevent cellular lysis for several days, reducing the need for immediate plasma preparation after venipuncture, thereby facilitating the ease of blood collection and sample preparation for clinical research. However, the majority of cell stabilizing reagents have not been formally tested for their ability to preserve circulating plasma tumor DNA. DESIGN & METHODS: In this study, we compared the properties of two cell stabilizing reagents, the cell-free DNA BCT tube and the PAXgene tube, by collecting blood samples from metastatic breast cancerpatients and measuring genome equivalents of plasma DNA by droplet digital PCR. We compared wild type PIK3CA genome equivalents and also assayed for two PIK3CA hotspot mutations, E545K and H1047R. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate that blood stored for 7 days in BCT tubes did not show evidence of cell lysis, whereas PAXgene tubes showed an order of magnitude increase in genome equivalents, indicative of considerable cellular lysis. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that BCT tubes can prevent lysis and cellular release of genomic DNA of blood samples from cancerpatients when stored at room temperature, and could therefore be of benefit for blood specimen collections in clinical trials.
Authors: M R Fernando; K Chen; S Norton; G Krzyzanowski; D Bourne; B Hunsley; W L Ryan; C Bassett Journal: Prenat Diagn Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.050
Authors: Y M Lo; M S Tein; T K Lau; C J Haines; T N Leung; P M Poon; J S Wainscoat; P J Johnson; A M Chang; N M Hjelm Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Frank Diehl; Kerstin Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Katharine Romans; Steven Goodman; Meng Li; Katherine Thornton; Nishant Agrawal; Lori Sokoll; Steve A Szabo; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Massimo Cristofanilli; G Thomas Budd; Matthew J Ellis; Alison Stopeck; Jeri Matera; M Craig Miller; James M Reuben; Gerald V Doyle; W Jeffrey Allard; Leon W M M Terstappen; Daniel F Hayes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jianbing Qin; Jodi R Alt; Bradford A Hunsley; Thomas L Williams; M Rohan Fernando Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 5.722
Authors: Christopher M Hindson; John R Chevillet; Hilary A Briggs; Emily N Gallichotte; Ingrid K Ruf; Benjamin J Hindson; Robert L Vessella; Muneesh Tewari Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Laure Sorber; Karen Zwaenepoel; Julie Jacobs; Koen De Winne; Kaat Van Casteren; Elien Augustus; Filip Lardon; Hans Prenen; Marc Peeters; Jan Van Meerbeeck; Geert Roeyen; Christian Rolfo; Patrick Pauwels Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Sarah R Greytak; Kelly B Engel; Sonya Parpart-Li; Muhammed Murtaza; Abel J Bronkhorst; Mark D Pertile; Helen M Moore Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jonathan C M Wan; Charles Massie; Javier Garcia-Corbacho; Florent Mouliere; James D Brenton; Carlos Caldas; Simon Pacey; Richard Baird; Nitzan Rosenfeld Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Jacob E Till; Taylor A Black; Caren Gentile; Aseel Abdalla; Zhuoyang Wang; Hareena K Sangha; Jacquelyn J Roth; Robyn Sussman; Stephanie S Yee; Mark H O'Hara; Jeffrey C Thompson; Charu Aggarwal; Wei-Ting Hwang; Kojo S J Elenitoba-Johnson; Erica L Carpenter Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 5.341
Authors: Matthew J Murray; Hannah L Watson; Dawn Ward; Shivani Bailey; Marta Ferraresso; James C Nicholson; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Benjamin Thomas; Cinzia G Scarpini; Nicholas Coleman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254