↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Direct Quantification of Cell-Free, Circulating DNA from Unpurified Plasma

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
patent
4 patents

Readers on

mendeley
329 Mendeley
Title
Direct Quantification of Cell-Free, Circulating DNA from Unpurified Plasma
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0087838
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah Breitbach, Suzan Tug, Susanne Helmig, Daniela Zahn, Thomas Kubiak, Matthias Michal, Tommaso Gori, Tobias Ehlert, Thomas Beiter, Perikles Simon

Abstract

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in body tissues or fluids is extensively investigated in clinical medicine and other research fields. In this article we provide a direct quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) as a sensitive tool for the measurement of cfDNA from plasma without previous DNA extraction, which is known to be accompanied by a reduction of DNA yield. The primer sets were designed to amplify a 90 and 222 bp multi-locus L1PA2 sequence. In the first module, cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma were compared to cfDNA concentrations in the eluate and the flow-through of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit and in the eluate of a phenol-chloroform isoamyl (PCI) based DNA extraction, to elucidate the DNA losses during extraction. The analyses revealed 2.79-fold higher cfDNA concentrations in unpurified plasma compared to the eluate of the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, while 36.7% of the total cfDNA were found in the flow-through. The PCI procedure only performed well on samples with high cfDNA concentrations, showing 87.4% of the concentrations measured in plasma. The DNA integrity strongly depended on the sample treatment. Further qualitative analyses indicated differing fractions of cfDNA fragment lengths in the eluate of both extraction methods. In the second module, cfDNA concentrations in the plasma of 74 coronary heart disease patients were compared to cfDNA concentrations of 74 healthy controls, using the direct L1PA2 qPCR for cfDNA quantification. The patient collective showed significantly higher cfDNA levels (mean (SD) 20.1 (23.8) ng/ml; range 5.1-183.0 ng/ml) compared to the healthy controls (9.7 (4.2) ng/ml; range 1.6-23.7 ng/ml). With our direct qPCR, we recommend a simple, economic and sensitive procedure for the quantification of cfDNA concentrations from plasma that might find broad applicability, if cfDNA became an established marker in the assessment of pathophysiological conditions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 329 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Ukraine 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 321 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 74 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 16%
Student > Master 46 14%
Other 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Other 43 13%
Unknown 62 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 72 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 14%
Engineering 14 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 3%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 69 21%