Giovanni Ponti1, Monia Maccaferri2, Marco Manfredini2, Shaniko Kaleci2, Mauro Mandrioli3, Giovanni Pellacani2, Tomris Ozben4, Roberta Depenni5, Giampaolo Bianchi2, Giacomo Maria Pirola2, Aldo Tomasi6. 1. Department of Surgical, Medical, Dental and Morphological Sciences with Interest in Transplant, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. Electronic address: giovanni.ponti@unimore.it. 2. Department of Surgical, Medical, Dental and Morphological Sciences with Interest in Transplant, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. 3. Department of Life Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. 4. Biochemistry Dept. Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. 5. Department of Oncology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. 6. Department of Diagnostic and clinical medicine and public health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (cfDNA) is of crucial interest in oncology. cfDNA constitutes a potential prognostic and therapeutic marker for different solid tumors and can be used in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancer patients for which nowadays there are no valid laboratory markers. In the present study, the quality and quantity of the cfDNA were assessed by different quantification procedures, in order to identify the potential applications of these techniques in the preliminary cfDNA quantification. METHODS: Qubit with single (ss) and double strand (ds) DNA assay kits, NanoDrop and quantitative Real Time PCR (qPCR), were adopted to assess the cfDNA in the blood samples of 18 melanoma patients, 67 prostate cancer patients and 15 healthy controls. RESULTS: The quantification by NanoDrop (average value 8.48ng/μl, 95% confidence limit (CL)=7.23-9.73), Qubit ssDNA (average value 23.08ng/μl, CL=19.88-26.28), dsDNA (average value 4.32ng/μl, CL=3.52-5.12) assay kits and qPCR (average value 0.39ng/μl, CL=0.31-0.47) revealed differences among the four procedures. Qubit 2.0 ss-DNA kit gave higher cfDNA concentration values for all the samples analyzed. In detail, Qubit ssDNA assay revealed higher sensitivity in the quantification of small amounts of pure ss-DNA and ds-DNA, while NanoDrop allowed the assessment of the purity of cfDNA samples. CONCLUSIONS: The NanoDrop and Qubit 2.0 measurements were analyzed in order to define their correlation with qPCR cfDNA assessment, showing good correlation values with the qPCR that should be considered the "gold standard". In our proposal, the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit ssDNA methods should be adopted for a cost-effective preliminary assessment of total circulating cfDNA in melanoma and prostate cancer patients, and only discordant values should undergo qPCR assessment.
BACKGROUND: Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (cfDNA) is of crucial interest in oncology. cfDNA constitutes a potential prognostic and therapeutic marker for different solid tumors and can be used in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancerpatients for which nowadays there are no valid laboratory markers. In the present study, the quality and quantity of the cfDNA were assessed by different quantification procedures, in order to identify the potential applications of these techniques in the preliminary cfDNA quantification. METHODS: Qubit with single (ss) and double strand (ds) DNA assay kits, NanoDrop and quantitative Real Time PCR (qPCR), were adopted to assess the cfDNA in the blood samples of 18 melanomapatients, 67 prostate cancerpatients and 15 healthy controls. RESULTS: The quantification by NanoDrop (average value 8.48ng/μl, 95% confidence limit (CL)=7.23-9.73), Qubit ssDNA (average value 23.08ng/μl, CL=19.88-26.28), dsDNA (average value 4.32ng/μl, CL=3.52-5.12) assay kits and qPCR (average value 0.39ng/μl, CL=0.31-0.47) revealed differences among the four procedures. Qubit 2.0 ss-DNA kit gave higher cfDNA concentration values for all the samples analyzed. In detail, Qubit ssDNA assay revealed higher sensitivity in the quantification of small amounts of pure ss-DNA and ds-DNA, while NanoDrop allowed the assessment of the purity of cfDNA samples. CONCLUSIONS: The NanoDrop and Qubit 2.0 measurements were analyzed in order to define their correlation with qPCR cfDNA assessment, showing good correlation values with the qPCR that should be considered the "gold standard". In our proposal, the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit ssDNA methods should be adopted for a cost-effective preliminary assessment of total circulating cfDNA in melanoma and prostate cancerpatients, and only discordant values should undergo qPCR assessment.
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: Santiago Vilanova; David Alonso; Pietro Gramazio; Mariola Plazas; Edgar García-Fortea; Paola Ferrante; Maximilian Schmidt; María José Díez; Björn Usadel; Giovanni Giuliano; Jaime Prohens Journal: Plant Methods Date: 2020-08-10 Impact factor: 4.993
Authors: Zuzana Pös; Ondrej Pös; Jakub Styk; Angelika Mocova; Lucia Strieskova; Jaroslav Budis; Ludevit Kadasi; Jan Radvanszky; Tomas Szemes Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 5.923