Analytical Comparison of Methods for Extraction of Short Cell-Free DNA from Urine

从尿液中提取短游离细胞 DNA 的方法分析比较

阅读:4
作者:Amy Oreskovic, Norman D Brault, Nuttada Panpradist, James J Lai, Barry R Lutz

Abstract

Urine cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a valuable noninvasive biomarker for cancer mutation detection, infectious disease diagnosis (eg, tuberculosis), organ transplantation monitoring, and prenatal screening. Conventional silica DNA extraction does not efficiently capture urine cfDNA, which is dilute (ng/mL) and highly fragmented [30 to 100 nucleotides (nt)]. The clinical sensitivity of urine cfDNA detection increases with decreasing target length, motivating use of sample preparation methods designed for short fragments. We compared the analytical performance of two published protocols (Wizard resin/guanidinium thiocyanate and Q Sepharose), three commercial kits (Norgen, QIAamp, and MagMAX), and an in-house sequence-specific hybridization capture technique. Dependence on fragment length (25 to 150 nt), performance at low concentrations (10 copies/mL), tolerance to variable urine conditions, and susceptibility to PCR inhibition were characterized. Hybridization capture and Q Sepharose performed best overall (60% to 90% recovery), although Q Sepharose had reduced recovery (<10%) of the shortest 25-nt fragment. Wizard resin/guanidinium thiocyanate recovery was dependent on pH and background DNA concentration and was limited to <35%, even under optimal conditions. The Norgen kit led to consistent PCR inhibition but had high recovery of short fragments. The QIAamp and MagMAX kits had minimal recovery of fragments <150 and <80 nt, respectively. Urine cfDNA extraction methods differ widely in ability to capture short, dilute cfDNA in urine; using suboptimal methods may profoundly impair clinical results.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。