Cell-Free DNA Fragmentation Patterns in a Cancer Cell Line

Vida Ungerer,Abel J Bronkhorst,Carsten Uhlig,Stefan Holdenrieder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12081896

2022-08-04

Abstract:Unique bits of genetic, biological and pathological information occur in differently sized cell-free DNA (cfDNA) populations. This is a significant discovery, but much of the phenomenon remains to be explored. We investigated cfDNA fragmentation patterns in cultured human bone cancer (143B) cells using increasingly sensitive electrophoresis assays, including four automated microfluidic capillary electrophoresis assays from Agilent, i.e., DNA 1000, High Sensitivity DNA, dsDNA 915 and dsDNA 930, and an optimized manual agarose gel electrophoresis protocol. This comparison showed that (i) as the sensitivity and resolution of the sizing methods increase incrementally, additional nucleosomal multiples are revealed (hepta-nucleosomes were detectable with manual agarose gel electrophoresis), while the estimated size range of high molecular weight (HMW) cfDNA fragments narrow correspondingly; (ii) the cfDNA laddering pattern extends well beyond the 1-3 nucleosomal multiples detected by commonly used methods; and (iii) the modal size of HMW cfDNA populations is exaggerated due to the limited resolving power of electrophoresis, and instead consists of several poly-nucleosomal subpopulations that continue the series of DNA laddering. Furthermore, the most sensitive automated assay used in this study (Agilent dsDNA 930) revealed an exponential decay in the relative contribution of increasingly longer cfDNA populations. This power-law distribution suggests the involvement of a stochastic inter-nucleosomal DNA cleavage process, wherein shorter populations accumulate rapidly as they are fed by the degradation of all larger populations. This may explain why similar size profiles have historically been reported for cfDNA populations originating from different processes, such as apoptosis, necrosis, accidental cell lysis and purported active release. These results not only demonstrate the diversity of size profiles generated by different methods, but also highlight the importance of caution when drawing conclusions on the mechanisms that generate different cfDNA size populations, especially when only a single method is used for sizing.