2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.06.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct circulating tumor DNA detection from unpurified plasma using a digital PCR platform

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The presence of contamination in cfDNA can, however, be accounted for by sequencing white blood cells and filtering somatic mutations attributable to clonal haematopoiesis [73], although this approach will not neutralise the diluting effect of such contamination on the tumour fraction of cfDNA. The necessity of extracting cfDNA from plasma was challenged by a study conducted by Sefrioui et al, The group compared concordance rates in a cohort of 17 mCRC patients and established 93% and 88% mutation detection rates for cfDNA isolated from plasma and crude plasma samples, respectively, suggesting that extraction of cfDNA from plasma may enhance detection by increasing tumour purity [74]. Similarly, increasing cfDNA concentration may also enhance concordance rates, by increasing the tumour fraction [75,76].…”
Section: Tumour Fraction and Mutation Allele Frequency (Maf)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of contamination in cfDNA can, however, be accounted for by sequencing white blood cells and filtering somatic mutations attributable to clonal haematopoiesis [73], although this approach will not neutralise the diluting effect of such contamination on the tumour fraction of cfDNA. The necessity of extracting cfDNA from plasma was challenged by a study conducted by Sefrioui et al, The group compared concordance rates in a cohort of 17 mCRC patients and established 93% and 88% mutation detection rates for cfDNA isolated from plasma and crude plasma samples, respectively, suggesting that extraction of cfDNA from plasma may enhance detection by increasing tumour purity [74]. Similarly, increasing cfDNA concentration may also enhance concordance rates, by increasing the tumour fraction [75,76].…”
Section: Tumour Fraction and Mutation Allele Frequency (Maf)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To our knowledge, there are only a few related studies that reported nucleosomal DNA evaluation using dPCR directly from unpurified plasma. 24 To determine the copy number difference of both mutation and wild-type bearing DNAs, evaluations were conducted for genomic DNA (gDNA) and nDNA, which are similar in size to cell-free DNA. In summary, the size of the DNA is a critical factor in measuring absolute copy number according to our tests with various concentrations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are only a few research reports that have directly tested the matrix effect. In one pilot study, which aimed to evaluate ctDNA detection using the dPCR platform, ctDNA was detected in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients directly from plasma as well as after an isolation step 24 . In this study, we conclude that optimized conditions are required to increase the precision of ddPCR to develop reference materials with matrix conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, dPCR overcomes the shortcomings in qPCR, such as the need for the normalization of the target gene-of-interest to endogenous reference or housekeeping genes, and the need for extraction, both of which result in inaccurate quantification and hampers inter-laboratory comparability of data [22,23] [24]. While direct DNA quantification from plasma or serum using dPCR was previously shown [21,2527], one step direct detection and RNA quantification in oocytes has not yet been successfully shown. Single oocyte places a physical limitation on RNA isolation due to its minute cellular and genetic volume, as well as the risk of loss.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In recent years, digital PCR (dPCR) has gained popularity in quantifying genetic material [17–19]. The technique of partitioning allows for high signal-to-noise ratio, high sensitivity to quantify absolute target genes, and being calibration free, are major advantages of dPCR over that of quantitative PCR (qPCR) [20,21]. In addition, dPCR overcomes the shortcomings in qPCR, such as the need for the normalization of the target gene-of-interest to endogenous reference or housekeeping genes, and the need for extraction, both of which result in inaccurate quantification and hampers inter-laboratory comparability of data [22,23] [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%