Literature DB >> 26630358

Optimizing the DNA yield for molecular analysis from cytologic preparations.

Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri1, Chi-Wan Chow2, Mary K Kane1, Hui Yao2,3, Ignacio I Wistuba2, Savitri Krishnamurthy1, John Stewart1, Gregg Staerkel1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cytology smears and cytospin preparations are increasingly being used for molecular testing. With these limited samples, optimizing tissue extraction to maximize the DNA yield is, therefore, critical. This study examined 2 common methods of tissue extraction and compared DNA yields from different types of glass slides.
METHODS: The H226 lung cancer cell line and 5 clinical samples of cellular effusions were used to prepare Diff-Quik-stained cytospins on 4 types of glass slides: fully frosted (FF), nonfrosted (NF), positively charged (PC), and silane-coated (SC). Tissue extraction was performed by either scalpel-blade scraping or cell lifting with the Pinpoint Slide DNA Isolation System (Zymo Research). DNA was extracted with the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (Qiagen) and was quantified with the Quant-iT PicoGreen Kit (Life Technologies).
RESULTS: The DNA yield in cell-line cytospins was significantly lower from FF slides versus NF, PC, and SC slides with both scraping and cell-lifting methods. In addition, scraping yielded significantly more DNA than cell lifting (P = .005). DNA yields from 5 clinical effusion cases with FF and NF slides showed results similar to the results for cell-line samples, with scraping consistently yielding more DNA than cell lifting and with NF slides outperforming FF slides.
CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the DNA yield extracted from cytology specimens maximizes the chances of successful molecular testing and is critical in cases of low or marginal cellularity. This study demonstrates the following: 1) scraping yields more DNA than cell lifting, and 2) NF slides yield more DNA than FF slides.
© 2015 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA yield; cytology; limited samples; molecular; mutational analysis; optimizing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26630358     DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21664

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol        ISSN: 1934-662X            Impact factor:   5.284


  14 in total

Review 1.  Tumor mutational burden in non-small cell lung cancer-the pathologist's point of view.

Authors:  Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Nina Radosevic-Robin
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-12

2.  Cell block samples from endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration provide sufficient material for ancillary testing in lung cancer-a quaternary referral centre experience.

Authors:  Emily Hopkins; David Moffat; Ian Parkinson; Peter Robinson; Hubertus Jersmann; Brendan Dougherty; Mohammed I Birader; Kate Francis; Phan Nguyen
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Stage I lung adenocarcinoma: the value of quantitative CT in differentiating pathological subtypes and predicting growth of subsolid nodules.

Authors:  Xianqun Xu; Kaisong Wu; Yanyan Zhao; Liejun Mei
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  A rapid and simple bead-bashing-based method for genomic DNA extraction from mammalian tissue.

Authors:  Shan Wei; Brynn Levy; Nataly Hoffman; Claudia Cujar; Reunet Rodney-Sandy; Ronald Wapner; Mary D'Alton; Zev Williams
Journal:  Biotechniques       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 1.993

5.  Implementing TMB measurement in clinical practice: considerations on assay requirements.

Authors:  Reinhard Büttner; John W Longshore; Fernando López-Ríos; Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse; Nicola Normanno; Etienne Rouleau; Frédérique Penault-Llorca
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2019-01-24

6.  Simplified molecular classification of lung adenocarcinomas based on EGFR, KRAS, and TP53 mutations.

Authors:  Roberto Ruiz-Cordero; Junsheng Ma; Abha Khanna; Genevieve Lyons; Waree Rinsurongkawong; Roland Bassett; Ming Guo; Mark J Routbort; Jianjun Zhang; Ferdinandos Skoulidis; John Heymach; Emily B Roarty; Zhenya Tang; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Keyur P Patel; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Evaluation of Cytologic Sample Preparations for Compatibility With Nucleic Acid Analysis.

Authors:  Laure Sorber; Bart Claes; Karen Zwaenepoel; Bieke Van Dorst; Koen De Winne; Els Fransen; Reinier Wener; Therese Lapperre; Filip Lardon; Patrick Pauwels
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 2.493

8.  Predictive value of mutant p53 expression index obtained from nonenhanced computed tomography measurements for assessing invasiveness of ground-glass opacity nodules.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Jian Li; Ransheng Liu; Aixu Zhang; Zhiyong Yuan
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-03-14       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 9.  Molecular diagnosis in non-small-cell lung cancer: expert opinion on ALK and ROS1 testing.

Authors:  Esther Conde; Federico Rojo; Javier Gómez; Ana Belén Enguita; Ihab Abdulkader; Ana González; Dolores Lozano; Nuria Mancheño; Clara Salas; Marta Salido; Eduardo Salido-Ruiz; Enrique de Álava
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  Next generation sequencing in cytology.

Authors:  Pasquale Pisapia; Francesco Pepe; Roberta Sgariglia; Mariantonia Nacchio; Gianluca Russo; Floriana Conticelli; Ilaria Girolami; Albino Eccher; Claudio Bellevicine; Elena Vigliar; Umberto Malapelle; Giancarlo Troncone
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 2.073

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.