Background Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (cfDNA) is of crucial interest in oncology. cfDNA constitutes a potential prognostic and therapeutic marker for different solid tumors and can be used in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancer patients for which nowadays there are no valid laboratory markers. In the present study, the quality and quantity of the cfDNA were assessed by different quantification procedures, in order to identify the potential applications of these techniques in the preliminary cfDNA quantification. Methods Qubit with single (ss) and double strand (ds) DNA assay kits, NanoDrop and quantitative Real Time PCR (qPCR), were adopted to assess the cfDNA in the blood samples of 18 melanoma patients, 67 prostate cancer patients and 15 healthy controls. Results The quantification by NanoDrop (average value 8.48 ng/μl, 95% confidence limit (CL) = 7.23–9.73), Qubit ssDNA (average value 23.08 ng/μl, CL = 19.88–26.28), dsDNA (average value 4.32 ng/μl, CL = 3.52–5.12) assay kits and qPCR (average value 0.39 ng/μl, CL = 0.31–0.47) revealed differences among the four procedures. Qubit 2.0 ss-DNA kit gave higher cfDNA concentration values for all the samples analyzed. In detail, Qubit ssDNA assay revealed higher sensitivity in the quantification of small amounts of pure ss-DNA and ds-DNA, while NanoDrop allowed the assessment of the purity of cfDNA samples. Conclusions The NanoDrop and Qubit 2.0 measurements were analyzed in order to define their correlation with qPCR cfDNA assessment, showing good correlation values with the qPCR that should be considered the “gold standard”. In our proposal, the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit ssDNA methods should be adopted for a cost-effective preliminary assessment of total circulating cfDNA in melanoma and prostate cancer patients, and only discordant values should undergo qPCR assessment.

The value of fluorimetry (Qubit) and spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) in the quantification of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in malignant melanoma and prostate cancer patients / Ponti, Giovanni; Maccaferri, Monia; Manfredini, Marco; Kaleci, Shaniko; Mandrioli, Mauro; Pellacani, Giovanni; Ozben, Tomris; Depenni, Roberta; Bianchi, Giampaolo; Pirola, Giacomo Maria; Tomasi, Aldo. - In: CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA. - ISSN 0009-8981. - 479:(2018), pp. 14-19. [10.1016/j.cca.2018.01.007]

The value of fluorimetry (Qubit) and spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) in the quantification of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in malignant melanoma and prostate cancer patients

Giovanni Ponti;Monia Maccaferri;Marco Manfredini;Shaniko Kaleci;Mauro Mandrioli;Giovanni Pellacani;Roberta Depenni;Giampaolo Bianchi;Giacomo Maria Pirola;Aldo Tomasi
2018

Abstract

Background Circulating cell-free tumor DNA (cfDNA) is of crucial interest in oncology. cfDNA constitutes a potential prognostic and therapeutic marker for different solid tumors and can be used in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of cancer patients for which nowadays there are no valid laboratory markers. In the present study, the quality and quantity of the cfDNA were assessed by different quantification procedures, in order to identify the potential applications of these techniques in the preliminary cfDNA quantification. Methods Qubit with single (ss) and double strand (ds) DNA assay kits, NanoDrop and quantitative Real Time PCR (qPCR), were adopted to assess the cfDNA in the blood samples of 18 melanoma patients, 67 prostate cancer patients and 15 healthy controls. Results The quantification by NanoDrop (average value 8.48 ng/μl, 95% confidence limit (CL) = 7.23–9.73), Qubit ssDNA (average value 23.08 ng/μl, CL = 19.88–26.28), dsDNA (average value 4.32 ng/μl, CL = 3.52–5.12) assay kits and qPCR (average value 0.39 ng/μl, CL = 0.31–0.47) revealed differences among the four procedures. Qubit 2.0 ss-DNA kit gave higher cfDNA concentration values for all the samples analyzed. In detail, Qubit ssDNA assay revealed higher sensitivity in the quantification of small amounts of pure ss-DNA and ds-DNA, while NanoDrop allowed the assessment of the purity of cfDNA samples. Conclusions The NanoDrop and Qubit 2.0 measurements were analyzed in order to define their correlation with qPCR cfDNA assessment, showing good correlation values with the qPCR that should be considered the “gold standard”. In our proposal, the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit ssDNA methods should be adopted for a cost-effective preliminary assessment of total circulating cfDNA in melanoma and prostate cancer patients, and only discordant values should undergo qPCR assessment.
6-gen-2018
479
14
19
The value of fluorimetry (Qubit) and spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) in the quantification of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in malignant melanoma and prostate cancer patients / Ponti, Giovanni; Maccaferri, Monia; Manfredini, Marco; Kaleci, Shaniko; Mandrioli, Mauro; Pellacani, Giovanni; Ozben, Tomris; Depenni, Roberta; Bianchi, Giampaolo; Pirola, Giacomo Maria; Tomasi, Aldo. - In: CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA. - ISSN 0009-8981. - 479:(2018), pp. 14-19. [10.1016/j.cca.2018.01.007]
Ponti, Giovanni; Maccaferri, Monia; Manfredini, Marco; Kaleci, Shaniko; Mandrioli, Mauro; Pellacani, Giovanni; Ozben, Tomris; Depenni, Roberta; Bianchi, Giampaolo; Pirola, Giacomo Maria; Tomasi, Aldo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
The value of fluorimetry (Qubit) and spectrophotometry (NanoDrop) in the quantification of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in malignant melanoma and prostate cancer patients.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Versione dell'editore (versione pubblicata)
Dimensione 348.3 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
348.3 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11380/1150962
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 39
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 35
social impact