Extraction of cell-free DNA – Evaluation of efficiency, quantity, and quality

Simone Karlsson Terp,Inge Søkilde Pedersen,Malene Pontoppidan Stoico
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2024.01.008
IF: 5.341
2024-02-04
Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
Abstract:Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) serves as a valuable biomarker for early disease detection and monitoring. However, the use of cfDNA for analysis faces challenges due to general low but variable abundance and fragmentation. Preanalytical factors, including cfDNA extraction, impact the 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, we evaluated manual, semi-automated, and automated methods, 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, utilizing samples obtained from 18 healthy donors. We assessed extraction efficiency, quantity, and quality using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and TapeStation. The QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, both manual and semi-automated, 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.
pathology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?