ArticlePloS one2026
Impact of preanalytical variables on urinary cell-free DNA quality: Centrifugation, EDTA concentration, storage and thawing strategies.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urinary cell-free DNA (ucfDNA) holds promise for liquid biopsies, yet standardized preprocessing protocols remain to be fully established. Using pooled urine from healthy volunteers, we compared the effects of EDTA concentration (0-40 mM), centrifugation (0-2 spins), storage temperature and duration (RT, -20°C, -80°C), and thawing conditions (4°C, RT, 37°C) on ucfDNA yield and purity (%cfDNA score). The optimal protocol was subsequently validated using patient urine. Untreated whole urine (WU) and urine supernatant (US) both exhibited substantial ucfDNA degradation within 1 day at RT. For EDTA-treated WU, %cfDNA scores declined markedly owing to high-molecular-weight DNA contamination, and 20-40 mM EDTA compromised yields. In contrast, 10 mM EDTA-treated US optimally preserved both ucfDNA yields and %cfDNA scores for 7 days at RT, whereas 40 mM EDTA impaired yields. Frozen US showed thawing-method-independent stability, whereas frozen WU thawed at 4°C lost >60% of ucfDNA yields. Post-thawing secondary centrifugation further reduced ucfDNA recovery. For long-term storage, 10 mM EDTA-treated US maintained baseline-equivalent ucfDNA quality at -80°C for 3 months, but ucfDNA degraded after 2 months at -20°C. Patient urine validation confirmed that 10 mM EDTA-treated US frozen at -20°C and thawed at 37°C preserved ucfDNA quality comparable to baseline. This study offers practical guidelines and standardized preprocessing protocols for optimizing ucfDNA preservation. For temporary storage of urine intended for ucfDNA preservation, adding EDTA to WU is not advised; instead, we recommend supplementing 10 mM EDTA to US and storing it at RT ≤ 7 days or at -20°C ≤ one month. Long-term storage requires temperatures below -80°C. Rapid thawing can yield good ucfDNA quality.
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.