Literature DB >> 29374860

Blood Collection and Cell-Free DNA Isolation Methods Influence the Sensitivity of Liquid Biopsy Analysis for Colorectal Cancer Detection.

Barbara Kinga Barták1, Alexandra Kalmár2, Orsolya Galamb3, Barnabás Wichmann3, Zsófia Brigitta Nagy2, Zsolt Tulassay2,3, Magdolna Dank4, Péter Igaz2,3, Béla Molnár3.   

Abstract

During colorectal cancer (CRC) development tumor-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be released into the bloodstream. Many different cfDNA isolation methods and specific blood collection tubes preventing the release of genomic DNA and stabilizing cfDNA with preservative reagents became available. These factors may affect greatly on the further liquid biopsy analyses. Our aim was to test different blood collection tubes and cfDNA isolation methods to determine whether these factors influence the cfDNA amount and the promoter methylation of four previously described hypermethylated biomarkers. Three manual isolation methods (High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid Large Volume Kit; Epi proColon 2.0 Kit; Quick-cfDNA™ Serum & Plasma Kit) and automated sample preparation systems (InviGenius and InviGenius PLUS) were examined. Furthermore, K3EDTA Vacuette tubes and Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT® tubes were compared. After cfDNA isolation and bisulfite conversion of samples, the methylation level of SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, and PRIMA1 were defined with MethyLight assays. We have ascertained that there are differences between the cfDNA amounts depending on the isolation methods. Higher cfDNA yield was observed using InviGenius system than column-based manual isolation method; however, InviGenius PLUS has produced lower cfDNA amounts. No remarkable variance could be found between K3EDTA and Streck tubes; slightly higher cfDNA quantity was detected in 60% of plasma samples using Streck tubes. In point of methylation level and frequency, manual column-based isolation produced more consistent results. Automated cfDNA extraction systems are easy-to-use and high-throughput; however, further improvements in the isolation protocols might lead to the increase of the sensitivity of further methylation analysis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blood collection; Colorectal cancer; DNA methylation; Liquid biopsy; Plasma; cfDNA isolation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29374860     DOI: 10.1007/s12253-018-0382-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res        ISSN: 1219-4956            Impact factor:   3.201


  15 in total

1.  Specialized Blood Collection Tubes for Liquid Biopsy: Improving the Pre-analytical Conditions.

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

2.  Application of Multiplex Bisulfite PCR-Ligase Detection Reaction-Real-Time Quantitative PCR Assay in Interrogating Bioinformatically Identified, Blood-Based Methylation Markers for Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Manny D Bacolod; Aashiq H Mirza; Jianmin Huang; Sarah F Giardina; Philip B Feinberg; Steven A Soper; Francis Barany
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 5.568

3.  Harmonizing Cell-Free DNA Collection and Processing Practices through Evidence-Based Guidance.

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

4.  Factors that influence quality and yield of circulating-free DNA: A systematic review of the methodology literature.

Authors:  R M Trigg; L J Martinson; S Parpart-Li; J A Shaw
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2018-07-25

5.  Early detection of colorectal cancer based on presence of methylated syndecan-2 (SDC2) in stool DNA.

Authors:  Yoon Dae Han; Tae Jeong Oh; Tae-Ha Chung; Hui Won Jang; Youn Nam Kim; Sungwhan An; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Clin Epigenetics       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 6.551

Review 6.  Detection and relevance of epigenetic markers on ctDNA: recent advances and future outlook.

Authors:  Evi Lianidou
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2021-05-14       Impact factor: 6.603

7.  Optimization of Preanalytical Variables for cfDNA Processing and Detection of ctDNA in Archival Plasma Samples.

Authors:  Marijana Nesic; Julie S Bødker; Simone K Terp; Karen Dybkær
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Pre-analytical factors affecting the establishment of a single tube assay for multiparameter liquid biopsy detection in melanoma patients.

Authors:  Svenja Schneegans; Lelia Lück; Katharina Besler; Leonie Bluhm; Julia-Christina Stadler; Janina Staub; Rüdiger Greinert; Beate Volkmer; Mikael Kubista; Christoffer Gebhardt; Alexander Sartori; Darryl Irwin; Elina Serkkola; Taija Af Hällström; Evi Lianidou; Markus Sprenger-Haussels; Melanie Hussong; Peter Mohr; Stefan W Schneider; Jonathan Shaffer; Klaus Pantel; Harriet Wikman
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2020-04-04       Impact factor: 6.603

9.  The Impact of Pre-transplant Cell-free DNA Levels on Leukemia Relapse and Transplant-related Complications in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients

Authors:  Zeynep Arzu Yegin; Ferda Can; Sanem Gökçen; Rezzan Eren Sadioğlu; Zübeyde Nur Özkurt; Çiğdem İlhan; Münci Yağcı
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2020-01-23       Impact factor: 2.021

10.  Sensitive Quantification of Cell-Free Tumor DNA for Early Detection of Recurrence in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Sebastian Stasik; Marika Mende; Caroline Schuster; Sandra Mahler; Daniela Aust; Andrea Tannapfel; Anke Reinacher-Schick; Gustavo Baretton; Claudia Krippendorf; Martin Bornhäuser; Gerhard Ehninger; Gunnar Folprecht; Christian Thiede
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.