Felix C K Wong1, Kun Sun2, Peiyong Jiang3, Yvonne K Y Cheng4, K C Allen Chan5, Tak Y Leung6, Rossa W K Chiu7, Yuk Ming Dennis Lo8. 1. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: felix@cuhk.edu.hk. 2. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: sunkun@cuhk.edu.hk. 3. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: jiangpeiyong@cuhk.edu.hk. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: yvonnecheng@cuhk.edu.hk. 5. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: allen@cuhk.edu.hk. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: tyleung@cuhk.edu.hk. 7. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: rossachiu@cuhk.edu.hk. 8. Centre for Research into Circulating Fetal Nucleic Acids, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; Department of Chemical Pathology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China. Electronic address: loym@cuhk.edu.hk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare the concentrations, size profiles and major tissue contributors of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma and in serum. DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirteen pregnant women in the third trimester were recruited for this study. We collected EDTA-plasma and serum samples using various collection tubes. We determined their cfDNA concentrations and fetal cfDNA fractions using a zinc-finger X (ZFX)/zinc-finger Y (ZFY) droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ZFX/ZFY ddPCR) assay. We used paired-end massively parallel sequencing (MPS) to measure plasma and serum cfDNA sizes at single-base resolution. We deconvoluted the genome-wide bisulfite sequencing data with reference to the methylation profiles of different tissues. RESULTS: The concentrations of cfDNA collected in Sarstedt Serum Z tubes were found to be significantly higher than those in Greiner Bio-One Vacuette® Z Serum Separator Clot Activator tubes or Vacuette® Z Serum Clot Activator tubes. The concentrations of fetal cfDNA were significantly reduced in samples collected in the Vacuette® serum collection tubes. Fetal cfDNA fractions were significantly reduced in all sera compared to plasma. MPS of serum cfDNA revealed a right shift of the size distributions compared to plasma. Methylation-based tissue mapping of serum cfDNA revealed an increase of cfDNA from neutrophils and B cells but not T cells. CONCLUSIONS: The use of different serum collection tubes has a significant impact on serum cfDNA concentrations. This effect is likely mediated through the combined effect of genomic DNA release from white blood cells and DNA degradation or removal. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to compare the concentrations, size profiles and major tissue contributors of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma and in serum. DESIGN AND METHODS: Thirteen pregnant women in the third trimester were recruited for this study. We collected EDTA-plasma and serum samples using various collection tubes. We determined their cfDNA concentrations and fetal cfDNA fractions using a zinc-finger X (ZFX)/zinc-finger Y (ZFY) droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ZFX/ZFY ddPCR) assay. We used paired-end massively parallel sequencing (MPS) to measure plasma and serum cfDNA sizes at single-base resolution. We deconvoluted the genome-wide bisulfite sequencing data with reference to the methylation profiles of different tissues. RESULTS: The concentrations of cfDNA collected in Sarstedt Serum Z tubes were found to be significantly higher than those in Greiner Bio-One Vacuette® Z Serum Separator Clot Activator tubes or Vacuette® Z Serum Clot Activator tubes. The concentrations of fetal cfDNA were significantly reduced in samples collected in the Vacuette® serum collection tubes. Fetal cfDNA fractions were significantly reduced in all sera compared to plasma. MPS of serum cfDNA revealed a right shift of the size distributions compared to plasma. Methylation-based tissue mapping of serum cfDNA revealed an increase of cfDNA from neutrophils and B cells but not T cells. CONCLUSIONS: The use of different serum collection tubes has a significant impact on serum cfDNA concentrations. This effect is likely mediated through the combined effect of genomic DNA release from white blood cells and DNA degradation or removal. Copyright Â
Authors: Irena Hudecova; Christopher G Smith; Robert Hänsel-Hertsch; Nitzan Rosenfeld; Florent Mouliere; Chandra S Chilamakuri; James A Morris; Aadhitthya Vijayaraghavan; Katrin Heider; Dineika Chandrananda; Wendy N Cooper; Davina Gale; Javier Garcia-Corbacho; Simon Pacey; Richard D Baird Journal: Genome Res Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Marjolein J A Weerts; Ronald van Marion; Jean C A Helmijr; Corine M Beaufort; Niels M G Krol; Anita M A C Trapman-Jansen; Winand N M Dinjens; Stefan Sleijfer; Maurice P H M Jansen; John W M Martens Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Xiaofang Cui; Shiyi Du; Houlin Liu; Ju Liu; Qingjian Wu; Qing Huo; Yanwei Qi; Xiao Qin; Yan Yang; Weiyang Li Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.411