BACKGROUND: Isolation and genotyping of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is gaining an increasing interest by clinical researchers in oncology not only for investigative purposes, but also for concrete application in clinical practice in terms of diagnosis, prognosis and decision treatment with targeted therapies. For the mutational analysis of single CTCs, the most advanced biotechnology methodology currently available includes the combination of whole genome amplification (WGA) followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the sequence of these molecular techniques is time-consuming and may also favor operator-dependent errors, related to the procedures themselves that, as in the case of the WGA technique, might affect downstream molecular analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A preliminary approach of molecular analysis by NGS on a model of CTCs without previous WGA procedural step was performed. We set-up an artificial sample obtained by spiking the SK-MEL-28 melanoma cell line in normal donor peripheral whole blood. Melanoma cells were first enriched using an AutoMACS® (Miltenyi) cell separator and then isolated as single and pooled CTCs by DEPArray™ System (Silicon Biosystems). NGS analysis, using the Ion AmpliSeq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 (Life Technologies) with the Ion Torrent PGM™ system (Life Technologies), was performed on the SK-MEL-28 cell pellet, a single CTC previously processed with WGA and on 1, 2, 4 and 8 recovered CTCs without WGA pre-amplification. RESULTS: NGS directly carried out on CTCs without WGA showed the same mutations identified in SK-MEL-28 cell line pellet, with a considerable efficiency and avoiding the errors induced by the WGA procedure. CONCLUSION: We identified a cost-effective, time-saving and reliable methodological approach that could improve the analytical accuracy of the liquid biopsy and appears promising in studying CTCs from cancer patients for both research and clinical purposes. Copyright
BACKGROUND: Isolation and genotyping of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is gaining an increasing interest by clinical researchers in oncology not only for investigative purposes, but also for concrete application in clinical practice in terms of diagnosis, prognosis and decision treatment with targeted therapies. For the mutational analysis of single CTCs, the most advanced biotechnology methodology currently available includes the combination of whole genome amplification (WGA) followed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). However, the sequence of these molecular techniques is time-consuming and may also favor operator-dependent errors, related to the procedures themselves that, as in the case of the WGA technique, might affect downstream molecular analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A preliminary approach of molecular analysis by NGS on a model of CTCs without previous WGA procedural step was performed. We set-up an artificial sample obtained by spiking the SK-MEL-28 melanoma cell line in normal donor peripheral whole blood. Melanoma cells were first enriched using an AutoMACS® (Miltenyi) cell separator and then isolated as single and pooled CTCs by DEPArray™ System (Silicon Biosystems). NGS analysis, using the Ion AmpliSeq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 (Life Technologies) with the Ion Torrent PGM™ system (Life Technologies), was performed on the SK-MEL-28 cell pellet, a single CTC previously processed with WGA and on 1, 2, 4 and 8 recovered CTCs without WGA pre-amplification. RESULTS: NGS directly carried out on CTCs without WGA showed the same mutations identified in SK-MEL-28 cell line pellet, with a considerable efficiency and avoiding the errors induced by the WGA procedure. CONCLUSION: We identified a cost-effective, time-saving and reliable methodological approach that could improve the analytical accuracy of the liquid biopsy and appears promising in studying CTCs from cancerpatients for both research and clinical purposes. Copyright
Authors: Giorgio Bogani; Minetta C Liu; Sean C Dowdy; William A Cliby; Sarah E Kerr; Kimberly R Kalli; Benjamin R Kipp; Kevin C Halling; Michael B Campion; Andrea Mariani Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Christopher D Hart; Francesca Galardi; Marta Pestrin; Francesca De Luca; Emanuela Risi; Angelo Di Leo Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Dimple Chudasama; James Barr; Julie Beeson; Emma Beddow; Niall McGonigle; Alexandra Rice; Andrew Nicholson; Vladimir Anikin Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Bernhard Polzer; Gianni Medoro; Sophie Pasch; Francesca Fontana; Laura Zorzino; Aurelia Pestka; Ulrich Andergassen; Franziska Meier-Stiegen; Zbigniew T Czyz; Barbara Alberter; Steffi Treitschke; Thomas Schamberger; Maximilian Sergio; Giulia Bregola; Anna Doffini; Stefano Gianni; Alex Calanca; Giulio Signorini; Chiara Bolognesi; Arndt Hartmann; Peter A Fasching; Maria T Sandri; Brigitte Rack; Tanja Fehm; Giuseppe Giorgini; Nicolò Manaresi; Christoph A Klein Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Stephanie S Yee; David B Lieberman; Tatiana Blanchard; JulieAnn Rader; Jianhua Zhao; Andrea B Troxel; Daniel DeSloover; Alan J Fox; Robert D Daber; Bijal Kakrecha; Shrey Sukhadia; George K Belka; Angela M DeMichele; Lewis A Chodosh; Jennifer J D Morrissette; Erica L Carpenter Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2016-02-28 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Giuseppa De Luca; Barbara Cardinali; Lucia Del Mastro; Sonia Lastraioli; Franca Carli; Manlio Ferrarini; George A Calin; Anna Garuti; Carlotta Mazzitelli; Simona Zupo; Mariella Dono Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 5.923