Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Chemistry
  • Other Publications
    • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Clinical Chemistry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Editorial Board
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Alerts
    • CE Credits
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Early Release
    • Future Table of Contents
    • Archive
    • Browse by Subject
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Permissions & Reprints
  • Resources
    • AACC Learning Lab
    • Clinical Chemistry Trainee Council
    • Clinical Case Studies
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing
    • Clinical Chemistry Guide to Manuscript Review
    • Journal Club
    • Podcasts
    • Q&A
    • Translated Content
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
OtherLetters to the Editor

Comparison of 7 Methods for Extracting Cell-Free DNA from Serum Samples of Colorectal Cancer Patients

Siew Lee Fong, Ji Tuan Zhang, Che Kang Lim, Kong Weng Eu, Yanqun Liu
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.110122 Published February 2009
Siew Lee Fong
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ji Tuan Zhang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Che Kang Lim
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kong Weng Eu
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yanqun Liu
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

The presence of cell-free DNA of tumor origin in serum or plasma of cancer patients (1) has triggered numerous studies to explore the diagnostic and prognostic potential of circulating DNA. This DNA, present only in minute concentrations in plasma or serum, is highly fragmented (2), a condition that often leads to substantial loss of DNA of small sizes in the course of DNA isolation. The lack of consensus regarding which extraction method is better for the efficient capture of such DNA might be partially responsible for the large disparities in the literature, which are reflected in reports of total concentrations of plasma or serum DNA alone (3) or DNA integrity measurement as a diagnostic or prognostic tool. The ability to detect mutated v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) DNA in serum has been reported to vary with the chosen DNA isolation methods (4).

We evaluated in parallel 7 isolation approaches (Table 1⇓ ) by extracting cell-free DNA from 12 pooled sera obtained from 67 colorectal cancer patients and grouped on the basis of TNM tumor staging [tumor extent (T), spread to lymph nodes (N), and metastasis (M)].1 The approaches we evaluated involved diverse strategies for DNA isolation. The experimental set-up involved DNA isolation from a 2-mL aliquot of serum in duplicate followed by DNA quantification by the fluorescent Quant-iT dsDNA HS assay (Invitrogen) and a Taqman real-time PCR (rPCR) technique on the cadherin 1, type 1, E-cadherin (epithelial) (CDH1) gene. To exclude false results in the CDH1 amplification due to various PCR inhibitors present in DNA extracts, the isolated DNA was further quantified by Taqman rPCR on bisulfite-converted DNA because the procedure of bisulfite-conversion of DNA removes many PCR-inhibitory components such as proteins, EDTA, and ethanol (EpiTech bisulfite kit, Qiagen). A fragment devoid of the CpG site of the actin, beta (ACTB) gene was the target for this round of rPCR. All 3 assays for DNA quantification were carried out in duplicate, and the DNA/gene amount in samples was interpolated by reference to corresponding standard curves generated by using 5 to 6 serial dilutions of a DNA standard. Appropriate blanks were included in each run. For rPCR, a positive control sample was run in each plate to control the interplate variation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Yield and fragment size of serum DNA isolated by 7 methods.

The 7 extraction methods showed remarkable differences in the recovery of DNA from serum (Table 1⇑ ). The phenol-chloroform procedure (PCI-glycogen), sodium iodide method (NaI method), and QIAamp DNA blood kit generated significantly higher yields of DNA, assessed by fluorescent measurement, than the other 4 methods (all P < 0.05). Assessed by rPCR targeting on CDH1 (amplicon size: 68 bp), the NaI method was ranked top in the list, and statistical significance (P < 0.05) was achieved in all pairwise comparisons except with the PCI-glycogen approach. The latter, however, outperformed only the guanidine-resin procedure as determined by application of the Dunnett T3 test for pairwise multiple comparisons (Table 1⇑ ). Because of the insufficient balance of DNA in the other 2 samples, we carried out the second round of rPCR on bisulfite-converted DNA in 10 pooled samples. Among 3 methods evaluated, the NaI method exhibited the most abundant gene copy numbers of ACTB (amplicon size: 115 bp), with the median of ACTB being 7 times higher than that generated by the QIAamp DNA blood kit, although the difference did not reach the statistical significance (Table 1⇑ ).

The higher recovery of DNA obtained with the NaI and PCI glycogen procedures was also revealed on the agarose gel, which showed much stronger DNA signals along each of 2 lanes (electrophoretic image available on request). Interestingly, substantial amounts of small DNA fragments were recovered with these 2 methods, a result that was not achievable with the other 5 protocols (Table 1⇑ ). Furthermore, the size of these small fragments appeared to correspond to that of nucleosomal DNA, i.e., approximately 180–220 bp or its multiples. Because circulating DNA is highly fragmented, any isolation method that favors capture of fragmented DNA from serum or plasma will be useful for a variety of downstream applications in modern clinical and translational research laboratories. These include efficient detection of mutations and capture of DNA methylation markers from serum or plasma.

In comparing the PCI-glycogen approach and the NaI method, we found that the latter was not only superior to the former in terms of DNA quantity, as assessed by 2 rounds of rPCR, but also was simpler, more rapid, and less costly (data available on request).

To summarize, the results of the present study, which involved 7 isolation methods performed via quantification of serum DNA by 3 assays and examination of fragment sizes of DNA isolated by electrophoresis, indicated that the NaI procedure consistently revealed better performance. Therefore, this procedure appears to be a suitable method for cell-free DNA extraction for many downstream applications in cancer research.

Acknowledgments

Author Contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 requirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design, acquisition of data or analysis, and interpretation of data; (b) drafting or revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval of the published article.

Authors’ Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest: Upon manuscript submission, all authors completed the Disclosures of Potential Conflict of Interest form. Potential conflicts of interest:

Employment or Leadership: S.L. Fong, Singapore General Hospital; K.W. Eu, Singapore General Hospital; Y. Liu, Singapore General Hospital.

Consultant or Advisory Role: None declared.

Stock Ownership: None declared.

Honoraria: None declared.

Research Funding: Grant from the National Medical Research Council (NMRC), Singapore.

Expert Testimony: None declared.

Role of Sponsor: The funding organizations played no role in the design of study, choice of enrolled patients, review and interpretation of data, preparation or approval of manuscript.

Acknowledgments: We would thank Bing Zhou Li (Research Operation, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore) for his assistance in the quantification of DNA.

Footnotes

  • 1 BS, bisulfite-converted; ND, not detected.

  • 2 Phenol-chloroform method with addition of glycogen.

  • 3 DNA yield was significantly higher than that isolated by the methods without any mark in the column (P < 0.05, by Friedman analysis followed by Dunnett T3 test for pairwise multiple comparisons), but there was no difference among marked methods.

  • 4 CDH1 quantity was second highest among all 7 methods but statistical significance was reached only in pairwise comparison with the guanidine-resin method (P < 0.05).

  • 5 Sodium iodide method (protocol available on request).

  • 6 CDH1 quantity was highest among all 7 methods and of statistical significance in all pairwise comparisons except with the PCI-glycogen procedure (P < 0.05).

  • 7 Adapted from the method described by Wang et al. (4).

  • 8 Performed according to manufacturer’s instructions except with addition of 3 μg of carrier RNA into each sample; catalog no. 51183, lot no. 127136152.

  • 9 Performed according to manufacturer’s instructions, catalog no. CS 11040, lot no. 1409017.

  • 10 Performed according to manufacturer’s instructions, catalog no. D3013, lot no. 32-200607019.

  • 11 Performed according to manufacturer’s instructions, part no. D-5500A, lot no. GS18781.

  • ↵1 A total of 67 Chinese patients with sporadic colorectal cancers who underwent potentially curative surgical resection at the Department of Colorectal Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, between February 2004 and November 2005, participated in the present study. None of these patients had a known history of familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, or other types of cancers. None of them received preoperative chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The institutional review board of Singapore General Hospital approved this study, and all study participants provided written informed consent.

  • © 2009 The American Association for Clinical Chemistry

References

  1. ↵
    Anker P, Mulcahy H, Chen Xq, Stroun M. Detection of circulating tumour DNA in the blood (plasma/serum) of cancer patients. Cancer Metastasis Rev 1999;18:65-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed Order article via Infotrieve
  2. ↵
    Jahr S, Hentze H, Englisch S, Hardt D, Fackelmayer FO, Hesch RD, Knippers R. DNA fragments in the blood plasma of cancer patients: quantitations and evidence for their origin from apoptotic and necrotic cells. Cancer Res 2001;61:1659-1665.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Boddy JL, Gal S, Malone PR, Harris AL, Wainscoat JS. Prospective study of quantitation of plasma DNA levels in the diagnosis of malignant versus benign prostate disease. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:1394-1399.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Wang M, Block TM, Steel L, Brenner DE, Su YH. Preferential isolation of fragmented DNA enhances the detection of circulation mutated K-ras DNA. Clin Chem 2004;50:211-213.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Chemistry: 55 (3)
Vol. 55, Issue 3
March 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Print
Share
Comparison of 7 Methods for Extracting Cell-Free DNA from Serum Samples of Colorectal Cancer Patients
Siew Lee Fong, Ji Tuan Zhang, Che Kang Lim, Kong Weng Eu, Yanqun Liu
Clinical Chemistry Mar 2009, 55 (3) 587-589; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.110122
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Comparison of 7 Methods for Extracting Cell-Free DNA from Serum Samples of Colorectal Cancer Patients
Siew Lee Fong, Ji Tuan Zhang, Che Kang Lim, Kong Weng Eu, Yanqun Liu
Clinical Chemistry Mar 2009, 55 (3) 587-589; DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.110122

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • To the Editor:
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Long Reads, Short Time: Feasibility of Prenatal Sample Karyotyping by Nanopore Genome Sequencing
  • Hide and Seek: Overcoming the Masking Effect of Opioid Antagonists in Activity-Based Screening Tests
  • Effect of Storage Temperature for B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations for Primary Healthcare Populations
Show more Letters to the Editor

Similar Articles

Options

  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Information for Authors
  • Resources
  • Abstracts
  • Submit
  • Contact
  • RSS

Other Publications

  • The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Footer logo

© 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Powered by HighWire