Mariana Fitarelli-Kiehl1, Fangyan Yu1, Ravina Ashtaputre1, Ka Wai Leong1, Ioannis Ladas1, Julianna Supplee2, Cloud Paweletz2, Devarati Mitra1, Jonathan D Schoenfeld1, Sareh Parangi3, G Mike Makrigiorgos4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Medical Oncology and Belfer Institute for Applied Cancer Science, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of General & Gastrointestinal Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; mike_makrigiorgos@dfci.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although interest in droplet-digital PCR technology (ddPCR) for cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) analysis is burgeoning, the technology is compromised by subsampling errors and the few clinical targets that can be analyzed from limited input DNA. The paucity of starting material acts as a "glass ceiling" in liquid biopsies because, irrespective how analytically sensitive ddPCR techniques are, detection limits cannot be improved past DNA input limitations. METHODS: We applied denaturation-enhanced ddPCR (dddPCR) using fragmented genomic DNA (gDNA) with defined mutations. We then tested dddPCR on cfDNA from volunteers and patients with cancer for commonly-used mutations. gDNA and cfDNA were tested with and without end repair before denaturation and digital PCR. RESULTS: By applying complete denaturation of double-stranded DNA before ddPCR droplet formation the number of positive droplets increased. dddPCR using gDNA resulted in a 1.9-2.0-fold increase in data-positive droplets, whereas dddPCR applied on highly-fragmented cfDNA resulted in a 1.6-1.7-fold increase. End repair of cfDNA before denaturation enabled cfDNA to display a 1.9-2.0-fold increase in data-positive signals, similar to gDNA. Doubling of data-positive droplets doubled the number of potential ddPCR assays that could be conducted from a given DNA input and improved ddPCR precision for cfDNA mutation detection. CONCLUSIONS: dddPCR is a simple and useful modification in ddPCR that enables extraction of more information from low-input clinical samples with minor change in protocols. It should be applicable to all ddPCR platforms for mutation detection and, potentially, for gene copy-number analysis in cancer and prenatal screening.
BACKGROUND: Although interest in droplet-digital PCR technology (ddPCR) for cell-free circulating DNA (cfDNA) analysis is burgeoning, the technology is compromised by subsampling errors and the few clinical targets that can be analyzed from limited input DNA. The paucity of starting material acts as a "glass ceiling" in liquid biopsies because, irrespective how analytically sensitive ddPCR techniques are, detection limits cannot be improved past DNA input limitations. METHODS: We applied denaturation-enhanced ddPCR (dddPCR) using fragmented genomic DNA (gDNA) with defined mutations. We then tested dddPCR on cfDNA from volunteers and patients with cancer for commonly-used mutations. gDNA and cfDNA were tested with and without end repair before denaturation and digital PCR. RESULTS: By applying complete denaturation of double-stranded DNA before ddPCR droplet formation the number of positive droplets increased. dddPCR using gDNA resulted in a 1.9-2.0-fold increase in data-positive droplets, whereas dddPCR applied on highly-fragmented cfDNA resulted in a 1.6-1.7-fold increase. End repair of cfDNA before denaturation enabled cfDNA to display a 1.9-2.0-fold increase in data-positive signals, similar to gDNA. Doubling of data-positive droplets doubled the number of potential ddPCR assays that could be conducted from a given DNA input and improved ddPCR precision for cfDNA mutation detection. CONCLUSIONS: dddPCR is a simple and useful modification in ddPCR that enables extraction of more information from low-input clinical samples with minor change in protocols. It should be applicable to all ddPCR platforms for mutation detection and, potentially, for gene copy-number analysis in cancer and prenatal screening.
Authors: Elena Castellanos-Rizaldos; Cloud Paweletz; Chen Song; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Harvey Mamon; Pasi A Jänne; G Mike Makrigiorgos Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Valerie Taly; Deniz Pekin; Leonor Benhaim; Steve K Kotsopoulos; Delphine Le Corre; Xinyu Li; Ivan Atochin; Darren R Link; Andrew D Griffiths; Karine Pallier; Hélène Blons; Olivier Bouché; Bruno Landi; J Brian Hutchison; Pierre Laurent-Puig Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Azeet Narayan; Nicholas J Carriero; Scott N Gettinger; Jeannie Kluytenaar; Kevin R Kozak; Torunn I Yock; Nicole E Muscato; Pedro Ugarelli; Roy H Decker; Abhijit A Patel Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Heidrun Gevensleben; Isaac Garcia-Murillas; Monika K Graeser; Gaia Schiavon; Peter Osin; Marina Parton; Ian E Smith; Alan Ashworth; Nicholas C Turner Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Viktor A Adalsteinsson; Gavin Ha; Samuel S Freeman; Atish D Choudhury; Daniel G Stover; Heather A Parsons; Gregory Gydush; Sarah C Reed; Denisse Rotem; Justin Rhoades; Denis Loginov; Dimitri Livitz; Daniel Rosebrock; Ignaty Leshchiner; Jaegil Kim; Chip Stewart; Mara Rosenberg; Joshua M Francis; Cheng-Zhong Zhang; Ofir Cohen; Coyin Oh; Huiming Ding; Paz Polak; Max Lloyd; Sairah Mahmud; Karla Helvie; Margaret S Merrill; Rebecca A Santiago; Edward P O'Connor; Seong H Jeong; Rachel Leeson; Rachel M Barry; Joseph F Kramkowski; Zhenwei Zhang; Laura Polacek; Jens G Lohr; Molly Schleicher; Emily Lipscomb; Andrea Saltzman; Nelly M Oliver; Lori Marini; Adrienne G Waks; Lauren C Harshman; Sara M Tolaney; Eliezer M Van Allen; Eric P Winer; Nancy U Lin; Mari Nakabayashi; Mary-Ellen Taplin; Cory M Johannessen; Levi A Garraway; Todd R Golub; Jesse S Boehm; Nikhil Wagle; Gad Getz; J Christopher Love; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-11-06 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Ioannis Ladas; Fangyan Yu; Ka Wai Leong; Mariana Fitarelli-Kiehl; Chen Song; Ravina Ashtaputre; Matthew Kulke; Harvey Mamon; G Mike Makrigiorgos Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Fangyan Yu; Ka Wai Leong; Alexander Makrigiorgos; Viktor A Adalsteinsson; Ioannis Ladas; Kimmie Ng; Harvey Mamon; G Mike Makrigiorgos Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 16.971