提取无细胞 DNA - 评估效率、数量和质量

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 PATHOLOGY
Simone K. Terp , Inge S. Pedersen , Malene P. Stoico
{"title":"提取无细胞 DNA - 评估效率、数量和质量","authors":"Simone K. Terp ,&nbsp;Inge S. Pedersen ,&nbsp;Malene P. Stoico","doi":"10.1016/j.jmoldx.2024.01.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges owing to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact cfDNA quality and quantity. Efficient and robust cfDNA extraction is essential for reliable results in downstream applications, and various commercial extraction methods exist, each with trade-offs. To aid researchers and clinicians in choosing the proper cfDNA extraction method, manual, semiautomated, and automated methods were evaluated, including the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (manual and QIAcube), QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube), and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony). For each extraction method, cfDNA was extracted on two separate days, using samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. This study assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semiautomated, outperformed the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube) and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony), showing higher recovery rates and cfDNA quantity. All methods were reproducible, with no day-to-day variability and no contamination by high-molecular-weight DNA. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit offers high yield without compromising quality. Implementation of the method should consider specific study and clinical needs, taking into account each method's advantages and limitations for optimal outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50128,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Molecular Diagnostics","volume":"26 4","pages":"Pages 310-319"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152515782400014X/pdfft?md5=30cbd9c79072993ea112539e0f69027b&pid=1-s2.0-S152515782400014X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extraction of Cell-Free DNA\",\"authors\":\"Simone K. Terp ,&nbsp;Inge S. Pedersen ,&nbsp;Malene P. Stoico\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmoldx.2024.01.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges owing to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact cfDNA quality and quantity. Efficient and robust cfDNA extraction is essential for reliable results in downstream applications, and various commercial extraction methods exist, each with trade-offs. To aid researchers and clinicians in choosing the proper cfDNA extraction method, manual, semiautomated, and automated methods were evaluated, including the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (manual and QIAcube), QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube), and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony). For each extraction method, cfDNA was extracted on two separate days, using samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. This study assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semiautomated, outperformed the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube) and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony), showing higher recovery rates and cfDNA quantity. All methods were reproducible, with no day-to-day variability and no contamination by high-molecular-weight DNA. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit offers high yield without compromising quality. Implementation of the method should consider specific study and clinical needs, taking into account each method's advantages and limitations for optimal outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Molecular Diagnostics\",\"volume\":\"26 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 310-319\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152515782400014X/pdfft?md5=30cbd9c79072993ea112539e0f69027b&pid=1-s2.0-S152515782400014X-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Molecular Diagnostics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152515782400014X\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Molecular Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152515782400014X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无细胞 DNA(cfDNA)是早期疾病检测和监测的重要生物标志物。然而,由于cfDNA的丰度和破碎程度普遍较低,但又不尽相同,因此使用cfDNA进行分析面临着挑战。包括 cfDNA 提取在内的分析前因素会影响 cfDNA 的质量和数量。为了帮助研究人员和临床医生选择合适的 cfDNA 提取方法,我们评估了手动、半自动和自动方法,包括 QIAamp 循环核酸试剂盒(手动和 QIAcube)、QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA 试剂盒(QIAcube)和 QIAsymphony DSP 循环 DNA 试剂盒(QIAsymphony)。对于每种提取方法,我们利用从 18 名健康供体采集的样本,在两天内分别提取了 cfDNA。我们使用液滴数字 PCR(ddPCR)和 TapeStation 评估了提取效率、数量和质量。QIAamp 循环核酸试剂盒(手动和半自动)的性能优于 QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA 试剂盒(QIAcube)和 QIAsymphony DSP 循环 DNA 试剂盒(QIAsymphony),显示出更高的回收率和 cfDNA 数量。QIAamp循环核酸试剂盒产量高,但不影响质量。该方法的实施应考虑具体的研究和临床需求,同时考虑到每种方法的优势和局限性,以获得最佳结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extraction of Cell-Free DNA

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges owing to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact cfDNA quality and quantity. Efficient and robust cfDNA extraction is essential for reliable results in downstream applications, and various commercial extraction methods exist, each with trade-offs. To aid researchers and clinicians in choosing the proper cfDNA extraction method, manual, semiautomated, and automated methods were evaluated, including the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (manual and QIAcube), QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube), and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony). For each extraction method, cfDNA was extracted on two separate days, using samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. This study assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semiautomated, outperformed the QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA Kit (QIAcube) and QIAsymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (QIAsymphony), showing higher recovery rates and cfDNA quantity. All methods were reproducible, with no day-to-day variability and no contamination by high-molecular-weight DNA. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit offers high yield without compromising quality. Implementation of the method should consider specific study and clinical needs, taking into account each method's advantages and limitations for optimal outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.40%
发文量
143
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, the official publication of the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), co-owned by the American Society for Investigative Pathology (ASIP), seeks to publish high quality original papers on scientific advances in the translation and validation of molecular discoveries in medicine into the clinical diagnostic setting, and the description and application of technological advances in the field of molecular diagnostic medicine. The editors welcome for review articles that contain: novel discoveries or clinicopathologic correlations including studies in oncology, infectious diseases, inherited diseases, predisposition to disease, clinical informatics, or the description of polymorphisms linked to disease states or normal variations; the application of diagnostic methodologies in clinical trials; or the development of new or improved molecular methods which may be applied to diagnosis or monitoring of disease or disease predisposition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信