Suppr超能文献

多中心评估循环血浆 microRNA 提取技术,以开发临床可行的逆转录定量 PCR 和下一代测序分析工作流程。

Multicenter Evaluation of Circulating Plasma MicroRNA Extraction Technologies for the Development of Clinically Feasible Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR and Next-Generation Sequencing Analytical Work Flows.

机构信息

Bayer AG, Pharmaceutical Division, Biomarker Research, Wuppertal, Germany.

QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany.

出版信息

Clin Chem. 2019 Sep;65(9):1132-1140. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2019.303271. Epub 2019 Jun 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In human body fluids, microRNA (miRNA) can be found as circulating cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA), as well as secreted into extracellular vesicles (EVmiRNA). miRNAs are being intensively evaluated as minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers in patients with cancer. The growing interest in developing clinical assays for circulating miRNA necessitates careful consideration of confounding effects of preanalytical and analytical parameters.

METHODS

By using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), we compared extraction efficiencies of 5 different protocols for cfmiRNA and 2 protocols for EVmiRNA isolation in a multicentric manner. The efficiency of the different extraction methods was evaluated by measuring exogenously spiked cel-miR-39 and 6 targeted miRNAs in plasma from 20 healthy individuals.

RESULTS

There were significant differences between the tested methods. Although column-based extraction methods were highly effective for the isolation of endogenous miRNA, phenol extraction combined with column-based miRNA purification and ultracentrifugation resulted in lower quality and quantity of isolated miRNA. Among all extraction methods, the ubiquitously expressed miR-16 was represented with high abundance when compared with other targeted miRNAs. In addition, the use of miR-16 as an endogenous control for normalization of quantification cycle values resulted in a decreased variability of column-based cfmiRNA extraction methods. Cluster analysis of normalized NGS counts clearly indicated a method-dependent bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of plasma miRNA extraction methods affects the selection of potential miRNA marker candidates and mechanistic interpretation of results, which should be done with caution, particularly across studies using different protocols.

摘要

背景

在人体体液中,microRNA(miRNA)可以作为游离细胞外 miRNA(cfmiRNA)存在,也可以分泌到细胞外囊泡(EVmiRNA)中。miRNA 作为癌症患者微创液体活检生物标志物正在得到深入研究。由于对开发循环 miRNA 临床检测方法的兴趣日益浓厚,因此需要仔细考虑分析前和分析参数的混杂影响。

方法

我们通过使用反转录定量实时 PCR 和下一代测序(NGS),以多中心方式比较了 5 种不同 cfmiRNA 提取方案和 2 种 EVmiRNA 分离方案的提取效率。通过测量 20 名健康个体血浆中外源性添加的 cel-miR-39 和 6 种靶向 miRNA,评估了不同提取方法的效率。

结果

测试方法之间存在显著差异。虽然基于柱的提取方法对于内源性 miRNA 的分离非常有效,但酚提取结合基于柱的 miRNA 纯化和超速离心导致分离的 miRNA 质量和数量较低。在所有提取方法中,与其他靶向 miRNA 相比,普遍表达的 miR-16 的表达丰度较高。此外,使用 miR-16 作为定量循环值归一化的内源性对照会降低基于柱的 cfmiRNA 提取方法的变异性。归一化 NGS 计数的聚类分析清楚地表明存在方法依赖性偏差。

结论

血浆 miRNA 提取方法的选择会影响潜在 miRNA 标记物候选物的选择和结果的机制解释,应谨慎进行,特别是在使用不同方案的跨研究中。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验