2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Semmelweis University, Szentkirályi str. 46, Budapest, H-1088, Hungary.
Molecular Medicine Research Group, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, H-1088, Hungary.
Pathol Oncol Res. 2019 Jul;25(3):915-923. doi: 10.1007/s12253-018-0382-z. Epub 2018 Jan 27.
During colorectal cancer (CRC) development tumor-derived cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be released into the bloodstream. Many different cfDNA isolation methods and specific blood collection tubes preventing the release of genomic DNA and stabilizing cfDNA with preservative reagents became available. These factors may affect greatly on the further liquid biopsy analyses. Our aim was to test different blood collection tubes and cfDNA isolation methods to determine whether these factors influence the cfDNA amount and the promoter methylation of four previously described hypermethylated biomarkers. Three manual isolation methods (High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid Large Volume Kit; Epi proColon 2.0 Kit; Quick-cfDNA™ Serum & Plasma Kit) and automated sample preparation systems (InviGenius and InviGenius PLUS) were examined. Furthermore, K3EDTA Vacuette tubes and Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT® tubes were compared. After cfDNA isolation and bisulfite conversion of samples, the methylation level of SFRP1, SFRP2, SDC2, and PRIMA1 were defined with MethyLight assays. We have ascertained that there are differences between the cfDNA amounts depending on the isolation methods. Higher cfDNA yield was observed using InviGenius system than column-based manual isolation method; however, InviGenius PLUS has produced lower cfDNA amounts. No remarkable variance could be found between K3EDTA and Streck tubes; slightly higher cfDNA quantity was detected in 60% of plasma samples using Streck tubes. In point of methylation level and frequency, manual column-based isolation produced more consistent results. Automated cfDNA extraction systems are easy-to-use and high-throughput; however, further improvements in the isolation protocols might lead to the increase of the sensitivity of further methylation analysis.
在结直肠癌(CRC)发展过程中,肿瘤衍生的无细胞 DNA(cfDNA)可释放到血液中。有许多不同的 cfDNA 分离方法和特定的血液收集管可防止基因组 DNA 的释放,并使用防腐剂试剂稳定 cfDNA。这些因素可能会极大地影响进一步的液体活检分析。我们的目的是测试不同的血液收集管和 cfDNA 分离方法,以确定这些因素是否会影响 cfDNA 量和先前描述的四个超甲基化生物标志物的启动子甲基化。我们检查了三种手动分离方法(High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid Large Volume Kit;Epi proColon 2.0 Kit;Quick-cfDNA™ Serum & Plasma Kit)和自动化样本制备系统(InviGenius 和 InviGenius PLUS)。此外,还比较了 K3EDTA Vacuette 管和 Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT®管。在 cfDNA 分离和样品的亚硫酸氢盐转化后,使用 MethyLight 测定法定义了 SFRP1、SFRP2、SDC2 和 PRIMA1 的甲基化水平。我们已经确定,cfDNA 量取决于分离方法而存在差异。与基于柱的手动分离方法相比,使用 InviGenius 系统观察到更高的 cfDNA 产量;然而,InviGenius PLUS 产生的 cfDNA 量较低。在 K3EDTA 和 Streck 管之间没有发现明显的差异;在 60%的血浆样本中,使用 Streck 管检测到稍高的 cfDNA 量。在甲基化水平和频率方面,手动基于柱的分离产生了更一致的结果。自动化 cfDNA 提取系统易于使用且高通量;然而,进一步改进分离方案可能会提高进一步甲基化分析的灵敏度。