ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
A review on the impact of single-stranded library preparation on plasma cell-free diversity for cancer detection.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A streamlined hybrid-capture and genome-wide multi-omic platform for highly sensitive ctDNA minimal residual disease monitoring.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- mChIP-seq for Multiplex and Multifactorial Epigenomic Profiling Uncovers Cancer-specific Histone Features in Cellular and Circulating Nucleosomes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- End-repair causes methylation underestimation in cell-free DNA sequencing libraries.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Beyond the Microscope: Integrating Liquid Biopsies into the Molecular Pathology Era of Endometrial Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Cell-Free DNA: Features and Attributes Shaping the Next Frontier in Liquid Biopsy.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In clinical oncology, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has shown immense potential in its ability to noninvasively detect cancer at various stages and monitor the progression of therapy. Despite the rapid improvements in cfDNA liquid biopsy approaches, achieving the required sensitivity to detect rare tumor-derived cfDNA still remains a challenge. For next-generation sequencing, the perceived presentation of cfDNA is strongly linked to the extraction and library preparation protocols. Conventional double-stranded DNA library preparation (dsDNA-LP) focuses on assessing ~167bp double-stranded mononucleosomal (mncfDNA) and its other oligonucleosomal cell-free DNA counterparts in plasma. However, dsDNA-LP methods fail to include short, single-stranded, or nicked DNA in the final library preparation, biasing the representation of the actual cfDNA populations in plasma. The emergence of single-stranded library preparation (ssDNA-LP) strategies over the past decade has now allowed these other populations of cfDNA to be studied from plasma. With the use of ssDNA-LP, single-stranded, nicked, and ultrashort cfDNA can be comprehensively assessed for its molecular characteristics and clinical potential. In this review, we overview the current literature on applications of ssDNA-LP on plasma cfDNA from a potential cancer liquid biopsy perspective. To this end, we discuss the molecular principles of single-stranded DNA adapter ligation, how library preparation contributes to the understanding of native cfDNA characteristics, and the potential for ssDNA-LP to improve the sensitivity of circulating tumor DNA detection. Additionally, we review the current literature on the newly reported species of plasma ultrashort single-stranded cell-free DNA plasma, which appear biologically distinct from mncfDNA. We conclude with a discussion of future perspectives of ssDNA-LP for liquid biopsy endeavors.
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.