ArticleHuman genomics2022
Digital PCR-based evaluation of nucleic acid extraction kit performance for the co-purification of cell-free DNA and RNA.
Article in Human genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated Enrichment of DNA Biomarkers from Large-Volume Samples: Detection ofAnalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Systems for DNA and RNA Viral Target.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Plasma-Derived Cell-Free RNA isolation methods using PCR-Based quantification.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of automatic cell free DNA extraction metrics using different blood collection tubes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Blood collection tube and RNA purification method recommendations for extracellular RNA transcriptome profiling.Nature communications · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Review on Circulating cfRNA in Plasma: Implications for Disease Diagnosis and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood plasma, one of the most studied liquid biopsies, contains various molecules that have biomarker potential for cancer detection, including cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA). As the vast majority of cell-free nucleic acids in circulation are non-cancerous, a laboratory workflow with a high detection sensitivity of tumor-derived nucleic acids is a prerequisite for precision oncology. One way to meet this requirement is by the combined analysis of cfDNA and cfRNA from the same liquid biopsy sample. So far, no study has systematically compared the performance of cfDNA and cfRNA co-purification to increase sensitivity.
resultsFirst, we set up a framework using digital PCR (dPCR) technology to quantify cfDNA and cfRNA from human blood plasma in order to compare cfDNA/cfRNA co-purification kit performance. To that end, we optimized two dPCR duplex assays, designed to quantify both cfDNA and cfRNA with the same assays, by ensuring that primers and probes are located within a highly abundant exon. Next, we applied our optimized workflow to evaluate the co-purification performance of two manual and two semi-automated methods over a range of plasma input volumes (0.06-4 mL). Some kits result in higher nucleic acid concentrations in the eluate, while consuming only half of the plasma volume. The combined nucleic acid quantification systematically results in higher nucleic acid concentrations as compared to a parallel quantification of cfDNA and cfRNA in the eluate.
conclusionsWe provide a framework to evaluate the performance of cfDNA/cfRNA co-purification kits and have tested two manual and two semi-automated co-purification kits in function of the available plasma input amount and the intended use of the nucleic acid eluate. We demonstrate that the combined quantification of cfDNA and cfRNA has a benefit compared to separate quantification. We foresee that the results of this study are instrumental for clinical applications to help increase mutation detection sensitivity, allowing improved disease detection and monitoring.
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.