Jing Zhu1, Jinyong Huang2, Peng Zhang2, Qianxia Li2, Manish Kohli3, Chiang-Ching Huang4, Liang Wang5,6. 1. Laboratory of Medical Genetics, Harbin Medical University, and The Key Laboratory of Preservation of Human Genetic Resources and Disease Control in China, Chinese Ministry of Education, 157 Baojian Road, Harbin, 150081, Heilongjiang, China. zhuj@ems.hrbmu.edu.cn. 2. Department of Pathology and MCW Cancer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 3. Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. 4. Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and MCW Cancer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. liang.wang@moffitt.org. 6. Department of Tumor Biology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Dr, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA. liang.wang@moffitt.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) libraries have been shown to enrich shorter and more degraded DNA fragments than double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) libraries. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated whether ssDNA libraries captured more circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA). METHODS: We prepared dsDNA, ssDNA and pure-ssDNA (capture the preexisting ssDNA) libraries using ten plasma cfDNA samples. After low-pass whole genome sequencing, we calculated a duplicate rate to estimate library complexity and compared the library insert sizes between the different library methods. Finally, we estimated the ctDNA content and plasma genomic abnormality (PGA) score, an indicator of ctDNA burden. RESULTS: 27 libraries were prepared and sequenced from the ten cfDNA samples. The duplicate rate in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries was significantly lower than in the dsDNA libraries (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). ctDNA content and PGA scores were consistently higher in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries than in the matched dsDNA libraries (p < 0.005). The higher ctDNA content in ssDNA libraries was associated with smaller library insert size. CONCLUSIONS: ssDNA libraries preserve more diversity and capture more ctDNA than dsDNA libraries. The ssDNA library method is preferred when performing genomic analysis of ctDNA.
BACKGROUND: Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) libraries have been shown to enrich shorter and more degraded DNA fragments than double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) libraries. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated whether ssDNA libraries captured more circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA). METHODS: We prepared dsDNA, ssDNA and pure-ssDNA (capture the preexisting ssDNA) libraries using ten plasma cfDNA samples. After low-pass whole genome sequencing, we calculated a duplicate rate to estimate library complexity and compared the library insert sizes between the different library methods. Finally, we estimated the ctDNA content and plasma genomic abnormality (PGA) score, an indicator of ctDNA burden. RESULTS: 27 libraries were prepared and sequenced from the ten cfDNA samples. The duplicate rate in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries was significantly lower than in the dsDNA libraries (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). ctDNA content and PGA scores were consistently higher in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries than in the matched dsDNA libraries (p < 0.005). The higher ctDNA content in ssDNA libraries was associated with smaller library insert size. CONCLUSIONS: ssDNA libraries preserve more diversity and capture more ctDNA than dsDNA libraries. The ssDNA library method is preferred when performing genomic analysis of ctDNA.
Authors: Florent Mouliere; Dineika Chandrananda; Anna M Piskorz; Elizabeth K Moore; James Morris; Lise Barlebo Ahlborn; Richard Mair; Teodora Goranova; Francesco Marass; Katrin Heider; Jonathan C M Wan; Anna Supernat; Irena Hudecova; Ioannis Gounaris; Susana Ros; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Javier Garcia-Corbacho; Keval Patel; Olga Østrup; Suzanne Murphy; Matthew D Eldridge; Davina Gale; Grant D Stewart; Johanna Burge; Wendy N Cooper; Michiel S van der Heijden; Charles E Massie; Colin Watts; Pippa Corrie; Simon Pacey; Kevin M Brindle; Richard D Baird; Morten Mau-Sørensen; Christine A Parkinson; Christopher G Smith; James D Brenton; Nitzan Rosenfeld Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Peiyong Jiang; Carol W M Chan; K C Allen Chan; Suk Hang Cheng; John Wong; Vincent Wai-Sun Wong; Grace L H Wong; Stephen L Chan; Tony S K Mok; Henry L Y Chan; Paul B S Lai; Rossa W K Chiu; Y M Dennis Lo Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joaquim S L Vong; Jason C H Tsang; Peiyong Jiang; Wing-Shan Lee; Tak Yeung Leung; K C Allen Chan; Rossa W K Chiu; Y M Dennis Lo Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Jian Li; Rachel L Dittmar; Shu Xia; Huijuan Zhang; Meijun Du; Chiang-Ching Huang; Brooke R Druliner; Lisa Boardman; Liang Wang Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2017-06-06 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Hunter R Underhill; Jacob O Kitzman; Sabine Hellwig; Noah C Welker; Riza Daza; Daniel N Baker; Keith M Gligorich; Robert C Rostomily; Mary P Bronner; Jay Shendure Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Philip Burnham; Min Seong Kim; Sean Agbor-Enoh; Helen Luikart; Hannah A Valantine; Kiran K Khush; Iwijn De Vlaminck Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 4.379
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: Jordan Cheng; Marco Morselli; Wei-Lun Huang; You Jeong Heo; Thalyta Pinheiro-Ferreira; Feng Li; Fang Wei; David Chia; Yong Kim; Hua-Jun He; Kenneth D Cole; Wu-Chou Su; Matteo Pellegrini; David T W Wong Journal: iScience Date: 2022-06-08