ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2020
Advantages of Single-Stranded DNA Over Double-Stranded DNA Library Preparation for Capturing Cell-Free Tumor DNA in Plasma.
Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circulating Cell-free DNA Fragmentomics Detection and Beyond.Aging and disease · 2025Review
- Recent advances in ctDNA detection using electrochemical biosensor for cancer.Discover oncology · 2024Review
- A review on the impact of single-stranded library preparation on plasma cell-free diversity for cancer detection.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Plasma contains ultrashort single-stranded DNA in addition to nucleosomal cell-free DNA.iScience · 2022Article
- Characteristics, origin, and potential for cancer diagnostics of ultrashort plasma cell-free DNA.Genome research · 2022Article
- Increased detection of circulating tumor DNA by short fragment enrichment.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Article
- Implementation of biomolecular logic gate using DNA and electrically doped GaAs nano-pore: a first principle paradigm.Journal of molecular modeling · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-stranded DNA (ssDNA) libraries have been shown to enrich shorter and more degraded DNA fragments than double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) libraries.
objectiveIn this study, we evaluated whether ssDNA libraries captured more circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA).
methodsWe prepared dsDNA, ssDNA and pure-ssDNA (capture the preexisting ssDNA) libraries using ten plasma cfDNA samples. After low-pass whole genome sequencing, we calculated a duplicate rate to estimate library complexity and compared the library insert sizes between the different library methods. Finally, we estimated the ctDNA content and plasma genomic abnormality (PGA) score, an indicator of ctDNA burden.
results27 libraries were prepared and sequenced from the ten cfDNA samples. The duplicate rate in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries was significantly lower than in the dsDNA libraries (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). ctDNA content and PGA scores were consistently higher in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries than in the matched dsDNA libraries (p < 0.005). The higher ctDNA content in ssDNA libraries was associated with smaller library insert size.
conclusionsssDNA libraries preserve more diversity and capture more ctDNA than dsDNA libraries. The ssDNA library method is preferred when performing genomic analysis of ctDNA.
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.