ArticlePloS one2018
A protocol for urine collection and storage prior to DNA methylation analysis.
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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of an affordable urine self-sampling method for human papillomavirus detection in Mexican women.PloS one · 2021Trial
- Urinary DNA Extraction in Uro-Oncology and Selected Non-Urological Malignancies: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Detection of recurrent endometrial cancer via DNA methylation analysis of cervicovaginal self-samples and urine.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Review
- Liquid biopsies in precision oncology for older adults with cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- Unlocking the potential of urine-based liquid biopsy through improved reporting and standardization.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2026Article
- Evaluation of urinary cfDNA workflows for the molecular profiling of malignant disease.iScience · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Review
- Bladder cancer detection in urine by novel methylation markers.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bladder Cancer detection by urinary methylation markers GHSR/MAL: a validation study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- ctDNA transiting into urine is ultrashort and facilitates noninvasive liquid biopsy of HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Ensuring Successful Biomarker Studies in Bladder Preservation Clinical Trials for Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- The Challenge to Stabilize, Extract and Analyze Urinary Cell-Free DNA (ucfDNA) during Clinical Routine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Impact of Cell-Debris and Room-Temperature Storage on Urine Circulating Tumor DNA from Hepatocellular Carcinoma.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2023Article
- Extrinsic and intrinsic preanalytical variables affecting liquid biopsy in cancer.Cell reports. Medicine · 2023Review
- UAS™-A Urine Preservative for Oncology Applications.Cancers · 2023Article
- Dynamics of methylated cell-free DNA in the urine of non-small cell lung cancer patients.Epigenetics · 2022Article
- Bladder cancer detection in urine using DNA methylation markers: a technical and prospective preclinical validation.Clinical epigenetics · 2022Article
- Beyond liquid biopsy: Toward non-invasive assays for distanced cancer diagnostics in pandemics.Biosensors & bioelectronics · 2022Review
- Trans-Renal Cell-Free Tumor DNA for Urine-Based Liquid Biopsy of Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.