ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2021
Optimization of Sources of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Variability for Downstream Molecular Analysis.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of cell-free DNA levels in the diagnosis and prognosis of sepsis and bacteremia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic Review of Methods for Measuring Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Plasma of Healthy Individuals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Circulating Cell-Free DNA Concentration as a Biomarker in Head and Neck Cancer.Oral diseases · 2025Article
- Donor-derived cell-free DNA in solid organ transplantation: analytical considerations, diagnostic performance, and clinical interpretation.Clinical transplantation and research · 2025Review
- DAGIP: alleviating cell-free DNA sequencing biases with optimal transport.Genome biology · 2025Article
- The expansion of liquid biopsies to vascular care: an overview of existing principles, techniques and potential applications to vascular malformation diagnostics.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Review
- The utility of cfDNA in TGCT patient management: a systematic review.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) is used increasingly as a cancer biomarker for prognostication, as a correlate for tumor volume, or as input for downstream molecular analysis. Determining optimal blood processing and ccfDNA quantification are crucial for ccfDNA to serve as an accurate biomarker as it moves into the clinical realm. Whole blood was collected from 50 subjects, processed to plasma, and used immediately or frozen at -80°C. Plasma ccfDNA was extracted and concentration was assessed by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR), fluorimetry, and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). For the 24 plasma samples from metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, the variant allele fractions (VAF) of KRAS G12/13 pathogenic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) were measured by ddPCR. Using a high-speed (16,000 × g) or slower-speed (4100 × g) second centrifugation step showed no difference in ccfDNA yield or ctDNA VAF. A two- versus three-spin centrifugation protocol also showed no difference in ccfDNA yield or ctDNA VAF. A higher yield was observed from fresh versus frozen plasma by qPCR and fluorimetry, whereas a higher yield was observed for frozen versus fresh plasma by ddPCR, however, no difference was observed in ctDNA VAF. Overall, our findings suggest factors to consider when implementing a ccfDNA extraction and quantification workflow in a research or clinical setting.
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.