Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34203921›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

From Sampling to Sequencing: A Liquid Biopsy Pre-Analytic Workflow to Maximize Multi-Layer Genomic Information from a Single Tube.

Kendra K Maass, Paulina S Schad, Agnes M E Finster, Pitithat Puranachot, Fabian Rosing, Tatjana Wedig, Nathalie Schwarz, Natalie Stumpf, Stefan M Pfister, Kristian W Pajtler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Kendra K MaassGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Paulina S SchadGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Agnes M E FinsterGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Pitithat PuranachotDivision of Applied Bioinformatics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6786-9240
Fabian RosingGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Tatjana WedigGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Nathalie SchwarzGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Natalie StumpfGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan M PfisterGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Kristian W PajtlerGerman Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, Hopp-Children's Cancer Center Heidelberg (KiTZ) and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid biopsies hold great promise for the management of cancer. Reliable liquid biopsy data depend on stable and reproducible pre-analytical protocols that comply with quality measures, irrespective of the sampling and processing site. We established a workflow for plasma preservation, followed by processing, cell-free nucleic acid isolation, quantification, and enrichment of potentially tumor-derived cell-free DNA and RNA. Employing the same input material for a direct comparison of different kits and protocols allowed us to formulate unbiased recommendations for sample collection, storage, and processing. The presented workflow integrates the stabilization in Norgen, PAX, or Streck tubes and subsequent parallel isolation of cell-free DNA and RNA with NucleoSnap and NucleoSpin. Qubit, Bioanalyzer, and TapeStation quantification and quality control steps were optimized for minimal sample use and high sensitivity and reproducibility. We show the efficiency of the proposed workflow by successful droplet digital PCR amplification of both cell-free DNA and RNA and by detection of tumor-specific alterations in low-coverage whole-genome sequencing and DNA methylation profiling of plasma-derived cell-free DNA. For the first time, we demonstrated successful parallel extraction of cell-free DNA and RNA from plasma samples. This workflow paves the road towards multi-layer genomic analysis from one single liquid biopsy sample.

Indexed as

blood preservation tubescancercell-free DNAcell-free RNACSFdroplet digital PCRliquid biopsylow-coverage whole-genome sequencingpre-analyticssize selection

Identifiers

PMID34203921
PMCPMC8232701

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.