ArticleEpigenetics2017
Comparative analysis of 12 different kits for bisulfite conversion of circulating cell-free DNA.
Article in Epigenetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Early diagnosis of ovarian cancer based on methylation profiles in peripheral blood cell-free DNA: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Pooled it
- Guidelines for pre-analytical conditions for assessing the methylation of circulating cell-free DNA.Clinical epigenetics · 2021Pooled it
- DNA methylation biomarkers in peripheral blood of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. A systematic review.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Early and accurate detection of ovarian cancer by profiling cell-free mitochondrial DNA fragmentomics in multi-ethnic population.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- Brain tumor detection based on transcription regulation features identified from public cerebrospinal fluid cell-free DNA sequencing data.Translational cancer research · 2026Article
- Review
- Plasma DNMT1 Activity for Assessing Tumor Burden and Predicting Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Breast Cancer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Comparison of enzymatic and bisulfite conversion of circulating cell-free tumor DNA for DNA methylation analyses.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Metabolic Diseases.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Review
- Evaluation of silica spin‑column and magnetic bead formats for rapid DNA methylation analysis in clinical and point‑of‑care settings.Biomedical reports · 2024Article
- The expansion of liquid biopsies to vascular care: an overview of existing principles, techniques and potential applications to vascular malformation diagnostics.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- Article
- DNA methylation markers in esophageal cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- Nanopore sequencing reveals methylation changes associated with obesity in circulating cell-free DNA from Göttingen Minipigs.Epigenetics · 2023Article
- The changing face of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiling: Factors that shape the landscape of methodologies, technologies, and commercialization.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2023Article
- Evaluation of commercial kits for isolation and bisulfite conversion of circulating cell-free tumor DNA from blood.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Article
- Article
- An overview of DNA methylation markers for early detection of gastric cancer: current status, challenges, and prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Evaluating DNA recovery efficiency following bisulphite modification from plasma samples submitted for cell-free DNA methylation analysis.Epigenetics · 2022Article
- Modelling clinical DNA fragmentation in the development of universal PCR-based assays for bisulfite-converted, formalin-fixed and cell-free DNA sample analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.