Worm Ørntoft Mai-Britt, Jensen Sarah Østrup, Hansen Thomas Birkballe, Bramsen Jesper Bertram, Andersen Claus Lindbjerg
a Department of Molecular Medicine , Aarhus University Hospital , Denmark.
b Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics , Aarhus University , Denmark.
Epigenetics. 2017 Aug;12(8):626-636. doi: 10.1080/15592294.2017.1334024. Epub 2017 May 30.
Blood circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is becoming popular in the search of promising predictive and prognostic biomarkers. Among these biomarkers, cfDNA methylation markers have especially gained considerable attention. A significant challenge in the utilization of cfDNA methylation markers is the limited amount of cfDNA available for analyses; reportedly, bisulfite conversion (BSC) reduce cfDNA amounts even further. Nevertheless, few efforts have focused on ensuring high cfDNA conversion efficiency and recovery after BSC. To compare cfDNA recovery of different BSC methods, we compared 12 different commercially available BSC kits. We tested whether DNA recovery was affected by the molecular weight and/or quantity of input DNA. We also tested BSC efficiency for each kit. We found that recovery varied for DNA fragments of different lengths: certain kits recovered short fragments better than others, and only 3 kits recovered DNA fragments of <100 bp well. In contrast, DNA input amount did not seem to affect DNA recovery: for quantities spanning between 820 and ∼25,000 genome equivalents per BSC, a linear relation was found between input and recovery amount. Overall, mean recovery ranged between 9 and 32%, with BSC efficiency of 97-99.9%. When plasma cfDNA was used as input for BSC, recovery varied from 22% for the poorest and 66% for the best performing kits, while conversion efficiency ranged from 96 to 100% among different kits. In conclusion, clear performance differences exist between commercially available BSC kits, both in terms of DNA recovery and conversion efficiency. The choice of BSC kit can substantially impact the amount of converted cfDNA available for downstream analysis, which is critical in a cfDNA methylation marker setting.
循环游离DNA(cfDNA)在寻找有前景的预测和预后生物标志物方面正变得越来越流行。在这些生物标志物中,cfDNA甲基化标志物尤其受到了广泛关注。利用cfDNA甲基化标志物的一个重大挑战是可用于分析的cfDNA量有限;据报道,亚硫酸氢盐转化(BSC)会进一步减少cfDNA的量。然而,很少有研究致力于确保BSC后cfDNA的高转化效率和回收率。为了比较不同BSC方法的cfDNA回收率,我们比较了12种不同的市售BSC试剂盒。我们测试了DNA回收率是否受输入DNA的分子量和/或数量的影响。我们还测试了每个试剂盒的BSC效率。我们发现,不同长度的DNA片段的回收率各不相同:某些试剂盒回收短片段的效果优于其他试剂盒,只有3种试剂盒能很好地回收<100 bp的DNA片段。相比之下,DNA输入量似乎并不影响DNA回收率:对于每个BSC中820至约25,000个基因组当量的量,发现输入量与回收量之间存在线性关系。总体而言,平均回收率在9%至32%之间,BSC效率为97%至99.9%。当血浆cfDNA用作BSC的输入时,最差试剂盒的回收率为22%,表现最佳试剂盒的回收率为66%,而不同试剂盒之间的转化效率在96%至100%之间。总之,市售BSC试剂盒在DNA回收率和转化效率方面存在明显的性能差异。BSC试剂盒的选择会对可用于下游分析的转化cfDNA量产生重大影响,这在cfDNA甲基化标志物研究中至关重要。