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 , Inge S. Pedersen , 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 , Inge S. Pedersen , 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}
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.
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.