High-throughput and affordable genome-wide methylation profiling of circulating cell-free DNA by methylated DNA sequencing (MeD-seq) of LpnPI digested fragments.
Colorectal cancer liver metastases
DNA methylation
Liquid biopsy
LpnPI
MeD-seq
Plasma
cfDNA
Journal
Clinical epigenetics
ISSN: 1868-7083
Titre abrégé: Clin Epigenetics
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101516977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 10 2021
20 10 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2021
accepted:
10
09
2021
entrez:
21
10
2021
pubmed:
22
10
2021
medline:
19
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
DNA methylation detection in liquid biopsies provides a highly promising and much needed means for real-time monitoring of disease load in advanced cancer patient care. Compared to the often-used somatic mutations, tissue- and cancer-type specific epigenetic marks affect a larger part of the cancer genome and generally have a high penetrance throughout the tumour. Here, we describe the successful application of the recently described MeD-seq assay for genome-wide DNA methylation profiling on cell-free DNA (cfDNA). The compatibility of the MeD-seq assay with different types of blood collection tubes, cfDNA input amounts, cfDNA isolation methods, and vacuum concentration of samples was evaluated using plasma from both metastatic cancer patients and healthy blood donors (HBDs). To investigate the potential value of cfDNA methylation profiling for tumour load monitoring, we profiled paired samples from 8 patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) before and after surgery. The MeD-seq assay worked on plasma-derived cfDNA from both EDTA and CellSave blood collection tubes when at least 10 ng of cfDNA was used. From the 3 evaluated cfDNA isolation methods, both the manual QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) and the semi-automated Maxwell® RSC ccfDNA Plasma Kit (Promega) were compatible with MeD-seq analysis, whereas the QiaSymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (Qiagen) yielded significantly fewer reads when compared to the QIAamp kit (p < 0.001). Vacuum concentration of samples before MeD-seq analysis was possible with samples in AVE buffer (QIAamp) or water, but yielded inconsistent results for samples in EDTA-containing Maxwell buffer. Principal component analysis showed that pre-surgical samples from CRLM patients were very distinct from HBDs, whereas post-surgical samples were more similar. Several described methylation markers for colorectal cancer monitoring in liquid biopsies showed differential methylation between pre-surgical CRLM samples and HBDs in our data, supporting the validity of our approach. Results for MSC, ITGA4, GRIA4, and EYA4 were validated by quantitative methylation specific PCR. The MeD-seq assay provides a promising new method for cfDNA methylation profiling. Potential future applications of the assay include marker discovery specifically for liquid biopsy analysis as well as direct use as a disease load monitoring tool in advanced cancer patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
DNA methylation detection in liquid biopsies provides a highly promising and much needed means for real-time monitoring of disease load in advanced cancer patient care. Compared to the often-used somatic mutations, tissue- and cancer-type specific epigenetic marks affect a larger part of the cancer genome and generally have a high penetrance throughout the tumour. Here, we describe the successful application of the recently described MeD-seq assay for genome-wide DNA methylation profiling on cell-free DNA (cfDNA). The compatibility of the MeD-seq assay with different types of blood collection tubes, cfDNA input amounts, cfDNA isolation methods, and vacuum concentration of samples was evaluated using plasma from both metastatic cancer patients and healthy blood donors (HBDs). To investigate the potential value of cfDNA methylation profiling for tumour load monitoring, we profiled paired samples from 8 patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) before and after surgery.
RESULTS
The MeD-seq assay worked on plasma-derived cfDNA from both EDTA and CellSave blood collection tubes when at least 10 ng of cfDNA was used. From the 3 evaluated cfDNA isolation methods, both the manual QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen) and the semi-automated Maxwell® RSC ccfDNA Plasma Kit (Promega) were compatible with MeD-seq analysis, whereas the QiaSymphony DSP Circulating DNA Kit (Qiagen) yielded significantly fewer reads when compared to the QIAamp kit (p < 0.001). Vacuum concentration of samples before MeD-seq analysis was possible with samples in AVE buffer (QIAamp) or water, but yielded inconsistent results for samples in EDTA-containing Maxwell buffer. Principal component analysis showed that pre-surgical samples from CRLM patients were very distinct from HBDs, whereas post-surgical samples were more similar. Several described methylation markers for colorectal cancer monitoring in liquid biopsies showed differential methylation between pre-surgical CRLM samples and HBDs in our data, supporting the validity of our approach. Results for MSC, ITGA4, GRIA4, and EYA4 were validated by quantitative methylation specific PCR.
CONCLUSIONS
The MeD-seq assay provides a promising new method for cfDNA methylation profiling. Potential future applications of the assay include marker discovery specifically for liquid biopsy analysis as well as direct use as a disease load monitoring tool in advanced cancer patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34670587
doi: 10.1186/s13148-021-01177-4
pii: 10.1186/s13148-021-01177-4
pmc: PMC8529776
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
196Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Epigenetics. 2018 May 16;10:63
pubmed: 29796114
Cancer J. 2017 Sep/Oct;23(5):257-261
pubmed: 28926425
Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101-8
pubmed: 18546601
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jun;31(6):745-759
pubmed: 33506766
Nat Methods. 2012 Mar 04;9(4):357-9
pubmed: 22388286
Genome Res. 2018 Jan;28(1):88-99
pubmed: 29222086
Nat Commun. 2018 Mar 1;9(1):896
pubmed: 29497091
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 29;9(1):5068
pubmed: 30498206
Dis Markers. 2020 Jun 5;2020:9761406
pubmed: 32566042
Nature. 2018 Nov;563(7732):579-583
pubmed: 30429608
Nat Med. 2019 Dec;25(12):1928-1937
pubmed: 31768066
J Clin Pathol. 1990 Sep;43(9):748-51
pubmed: 2120290
J Mol Diagn. 2019 Jan;21(1):123-137
pubmed: 30296589
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2018 Aug 29;10:1758835918794630
pubmed: 30181785
Mol Oncol. 2017 Mar;11(3):295-304
pubmed: 28164427
Mol Oncol. 2020 Aug;14(8):1719-1730
pubmed: 32449983
Br J Cancer. 2018 May;118(9):1217-1228
pubmed: 29610456
Gut. 2018 Nov;67(11):1995-2005
pubmed: 28982739
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Oct;28(10):1106-14
pubmed: 20852634
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1138-42
pubmed: 12576869
Epigenetics. 2021 Jan-Feb;16(2):196-208
pubmed: 32662719
Mol Oncol. 2019 Nov;13(11):2361-2374
pubmed: 31350822
Nat Protoc. 2019 Oct;14(10):2749-2780
pubmed: 31471598
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;924:147-155
pubmed: 27753036
Nature. 2017 Apr 26;545(7655):446-451
pubmed: 28445469
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Oct 19;11(10):
pubmed: 31635093
Genome Biol. 2014 Mar 05;15(3):R50
pubmed: 24598480
Epigenetics. 2017 Aug;12(8):626-636
pubmed: 28557629
Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2019 Apr;58(4):219-232
pubmed: 30382599
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018 Sep;144(9):1741-1750
pubmed: 29992492