Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30339164›Full record

ArticleLab on a chip2018

Microfluidic-based solid phase extraction of cell free DNA.

Camila D M Campos, Sachindra S T Gamage, Joshua M Jackson, Malgorzata A Witek, Daniel S Park, Michael C Murphy, Andrew K Godwin, Steven A Soper

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lab on a chip, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Detection ofFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Analytical Technologies for Liquid Biopsy of Subcellular Materials.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2021
    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

8 authors.

Camila D M CamposDepartment of Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. ssoper@ku.edu.
Sachindra S T Gamage
Joshua M Jackson
Malgorzata A Witek
Daniel S Park
Michael C Murphy
Andrew K Godwin
Steven A Soper

Funding

Transgenic & Gene-Targeting Shared ResourceP30CA168524 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROY A. JENSEN · 2012 to 2026
$40.1M
Understanding the mechanobiology of stem cells in a microengineered 3D cardiac tissue environment with cardiomyopathyP20GM103638 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI LUNTE, SUSAN M · 2012 to 2021
$22.1M
Single-Molecule Processing: Detection and Identification of Single DNAs, RNAs, and Proteins using Immobilized Nanoscale Enzymatic Reactors (INERs) and Nanoscale ElectrophoresisP41EB020594 · NIBIB · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Sunggook Park · 2015 to 2026
$15.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA168524NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB020594NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is a liquid biopsy marker that can carry signatures (i.e., mutations) associated with certain pathological conditions. Therefore, the extraction of cfDNA from a variety of clinical samples can be an effective and minimally invasive source of markers for disease detection and subsequent management. In the oncological diseases, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), a cfDNA sub-class, can carry clinically actionable mutations and coupled with next generation sequencing or other mutation detection methods provide a venue for effective in vitro diagnostics. However, cfDNA mutational analyses require high quality inputs. This necessitates extraction platforms that provide high recovery over the entire ctDNA size range (50 → 150 bp) with minimal interferences (i.e., co-extraction of genomic DNA), and high reproducibility with a simple workflow. Herein, we present a novel microfluidic solid-phase extraction device (μSPE) consisting of a plastic chip that is activated with UV/O3 to generate surface-confined carboxylic acid functionalities for the μSPE of cfDNA. The μSPE uses an immobilization buffer (IB) consisting of polyethylene glycol and salts that induce cfDNA condensation onto the activated plastic microfluidic surface. The μSPE consists of an array of micropillars to increase extraction bed load (scalable to loads >700 ng of cfDNA) and can be produced at low-cost using replication-based techniques. The entire μSPE can be fabricated in a single molding step negating the need for adding additional extraction supports to the device simplifying production and keeping device and assay cost low. The μSPE allowed for recoveries >90% of model cfDNA fragments across a range of sizes (100-700 bp) and even the ability to extract efficiently short cfDNA fragments (50 bp, >70%). In addition, the composition of the IB allowed for reducing the interference of co-extracted genomic DNA. We demonstrated the clinical utility of the μSPE by quantifying the levels of cfDNA in healthy donors and patients with non-small-cell lung and colorectal cancers. μSPE extracted cfDNA from plasma samples was also subjected to a ligase detection reaction (LDR) for determining the presence of mutations in the KRAS gene for colorectal and non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCell Line, TumorEquipment DesignHumansPlasticsSolid Phase ExtractionCell-Free Nucleic AcidsPlastics

Identifiers

PMID30339164
PMCPMC6391159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.