Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30142219›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A protocol for urine collection and storage prior to DNA methylation analysis.

J Bosschieter, S Bach, I V Bijnsdorp, L I Segerink, W F Rurup, A P van Splunter, I Bahce, P W Novianti, G Kazemier, R J A van Moorselaar and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. RASSF1A and its epigenetic dysregulation in genitourinary cancer: a current update.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A review of urinary HPV testing for cervical cancer management and HPV vaccine surveillance: rationale, strategies, and limitations.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J BosschieterCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Urology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0718-897X
S BachCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
I V BijnsdorpCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Urology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
L I SegerinkBIOS Lab on a Chip group, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
W F RurupBIOS Lab on a Chip group, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.
A P van SplunterCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Pathology and Molecular Biology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
I BahceCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Pulmonology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
P W NoviantiCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Pathology and Molecular Biology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
G KazemierCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R J A van MoorselaarCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Urology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R D M SteenbergenCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Pathology and Molecular Biology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J A NieuwenhuijzenCancer Center Amsterdam, Department of Urology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLCancer Center Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Twente · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrine poses an attractive non-invasive means for obtaining liquid biopsies for oncological diagnostics. Especially molecular analysis on urinary DNA is a rapid growing field. However, optimal and practical storage conditions that result in preservation of urinary DNA, and in particular hypermethylated DNA (hmDNA), are yet to be determined.

aimTo determine the most optimal and practical conditions for urine storage that result in adequate preservation of DNA for hmDNA analysis.

methodsDNA yield for use in methylation analysis was determined by quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP) targeting the ACTB and RASSF1A genes on bisulfite modified DNA. First, DNA yield (ACTB qMSP) was determined in a pilot study on urine samples of healthy volunteers using two preservatives (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and Urine Conditioning Buffer, Zymo Research) at four different temperatures (room temperature (RT), 4°C, -20°C, -80°C) for four time periods (1, 2, 7, 28 days). Next, hmDNA levels (RASSF1A qMSP) in stored urine samples of patients suffering from bladder cancer (n = 10) or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; n = 10) were measured at day 0 and 7 upon storage with and without the addition of 40mM EDTA and/or 20 μl/ml Penicillin Streptomycin (PenStrep) at RT and 4°C.

resultsIn the pilot study, DNA for methylation analysis was only maintained at RT upon addition of preserving agents. In urine stored at 4°C for a period of 7 days or more, the addition of either preserving agent yielded a slightly better preservation of DNA. When urine was stored at -20 °C or -80 °C for up to 28 days, DNA was retained irrespective of the addition of preserving agents. In bladder cancer and NSCLC samples stored at RT loss of DNA was significantly less if EDTA was added compared to no preserving agents (p<0.001). Addition of PenStrep did not affect DNA preservation (p>0.99). Upon storage at 4°C, no difference in DNA preservation was found after the addition of preserving agents (p = 0.18). The preservation of methylated DNA (RASSF1A) was strongly correlated to that of unmethylated DNA (ACTB) in most cases, except when PCR values became inaccurate.

conclusionsAddition of EDTA offers an inexpensive preserving agent for urine storage at RT up to seven days allowing for reliable hmDNA analysis. To avoid bacterial overgrowth PenStrep can be added without negatively affecting DNA preservation.

Indexed as

DNA MethylationBiomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDNADNA, NeoplasmEdetic AcidHumansLiquid BiopsyLung NeoplasmsPilot ProjectsPolymerase Chain ReactionPreservation, BiologicalSpecimen HandlingUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsUrine Specimen CollectionBiomarkers, TumorDNADNA, NeoplasmEdetic Acid

Identifiers

PMID30142219
PMCPMC6108475
OpenAlexW2888635442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.