Cargando…

High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms

The emerging interest in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses for clinical trials has necessitated the development of a high‐throughput method for fast, reproducible, and efficient isolation of ctDNA. Currently, the majority of ctDNA studies use the manual QIAamp (QA) platform to isolate DNA from...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Dessel, Lisanne F., Vitale, Silvia R., Helmijr, Jean C. A., Wilting, Saskia M., van der Vlugt‐Daane, Michelle, Oomen‐de Hoop, Esther, Sleijfer, Stefan, Martens, John W. M., Jansen, Maurice P. H. M., Lolkema, Martijn P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30516338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12415
_version_ 1783392469731246080
author van Dessel, Lisanne F.
Vitale, Silvia R.
Helmijr, Jean C. A.
Wilting, Saskia M.
van der Vlugt‐Daane, Michelle
Oomen‐de Hoop, Esther
Sleijfer, Stefan
Martens, John W. M.
Jansen, Maurice P. H. M.
Lolkema, Martijn P.
author_facet van Dessel, Lisanne F.
Vitale, Silvia R.
Helmijr, Jean C. A.
Wilting, Saskia M.
van der Vlugt‐Daane, Michelle
Oomen‐de Hoop, Esther
Sleijfer, Stefan
Martens, John W. M.
Jansen, Maurice P. H. M.
Lolkema, Martijn P.
author_sort van Dessel, Lisanne F.
collection PubMed
description The emerging interest in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses for clinical trials has necessitated the development of a high‐throughput method for fast, reproducible, and efficient isolation of ctDNA. Currently, the majority of ctDNA studies use the manual QIAamp (QA) platform to isolate DNA from blood. The purpose of this study was to compare two competing automated DNA isolation platforms [Maxwell (MX) and QIAsymphony (QS)] to the current ‘gold standard’ QA to facilitate high‐throughput processing of samples in prospective trials. We obtained blood samples from healthy blood donors and metastatic cancer patients for plasma isolation. Total cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) quantity was assessed by TERT quantitative PCR. Recovery efficiency was investigated by quantitative PCR analysis of spiked‐in synthetic plant DNA. In addition, a β‐actin fragmentation assay was performed to determine the amount of contamination by genomic DNA from lysed leukocytes. ctDNA quality was assessed by digital PCR for somatic variant detection. cfDNA quantity and recovery efficiency were lowest using the MX platform, whereas QA and QS showed a comparable performance. All platforms preferentially isolated small (136 bp) DNA fragments over large (420 and 2000 bp) DNA fragments. Detection of the number variant and wild‐type molecules was most comparable between QA and QS. However, there was no significant difference in variant allele frequency comparing QS and MX to QA. In summary, we show that the QS platform has comparable performance to QA, the ‘gold standard’, and outperformed the MX platform depending on the readout used. We conclude that the QS can replace the more laborious QA platform, especially when high‐throughput cfDNA isolation is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6360376
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63603762019-02-14 High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms van Dessel, Lisanne F. Vitale, Silvia R. Helmijr, Jean C. A. Wilting, Saskia M. van der Vlugt‐Daane, Michelle Oomen‐de Hoop, Esther Sleijfer, Stefan Martens, John W. M. Jansen, Maurice P. H. M. Lolkema, Martijn P. Mol Oncol Research Articles The emerging interest in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses for clinical trials has necessitated the development of a high‐throughput method for fast, reproducible, and efficient isolation of ctDNA. Currently, the majority of ctDNA studies use the manual QIAamp (QA) platform to isolate DNA from blood. The purpose of this study was to compare two competing automated DNA isolation platforms [Maxwell (MX) and QIAsymphony (QS)] to the current ‘gold standard’ QA to facilitate high‐throughput processing of samples in prospective trials. We obtained blood samples from healthy blood donors and metastatic cancer patients for plasma isolation. Total cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) quantity was assessed by TERT quantitative PCR. Recovery efficiency was investigated by quantitative PCR analysis of spiked‐in synthetic plant DNA. In addition, a β‐actin fragmentation assay was performed to determine the amount of contamination by genomic DNA from lysed leukocytes. ctDNA quality was assessed by digital PCR for somatic variant detection. cfDNA quantity and recovery efficiency were lowest using the MX platform, whereas QA and QS showed a comparable performance. All platforms preferentially isolated small (136 bp) DNA fragments over large (420 and 2000 bp) DNA fragments. Detection of the number variant and wild‐type molecules was most comparable between QA and QS. However, there was no significant difference in variant allele frequency comparing QS and MX to QA. In summary, we show that the QS platform has comparable performance to QA, the ‘gold standard’, and outperformed the MX platform depending on the readout used. We conclude that the QS can replace the more laborious QA platform, especially when high‐throughput cfDNA isolation is needed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-12-22 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6360376/ /pubmed/30516338 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12415 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Published by FEBS Press and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
van Dessel, Lisanne F.
Vitale, Silvia R.
Helmijr, Jean C. A.
Wilting, Saskia M.
van der Vlugt‐Daane, Michelle
Oomen‐de Hoop, Esther
Sleijfer, Stefan
Martens, John W. M.
Jansen, Maurice P. H. M.
Lolkema, Martijn P.
High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title_full High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title_fullStr High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title_full_unstemmed High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title_short High‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor DNA: a comparison of automated platforms
title_sort high‐throughput isolation of circulating tumor dna: a comparison of automated platforms
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360376/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30516338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12415
work_keys_str_mv AT vandessellisannef highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT vitalesilviar highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT helmijrjeanca highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT wiltingsaskiam highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT vandervlugtdaanemichelle highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT oomendehoopesther highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT sleijferstefan highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT martensjohnwm highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT jansenmauricephm highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms
AT lolkemamartijnp highthroughputisolationofcirculatingtumordnaacomparisonofautomatedplatforms