Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) libraries have been shown to enrich shorter and more degraded DNA fragments than double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) libraries.Objective
In this study, we evaluated whether ssDNA libraries captured more circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA).Methods
We prepared dsDNA, ssDNA and pure-ssDNA (capture the preexisting ssDNA) libraries using ten plasma cfDNA samples. After low-pass whole genome sequencing, we calculated a duplicate rate to estimate library complexity and compared the library insert sizes between the different library methods. Finally, we estimated the ctDNA content and plasma genomic abnormality (PGA) score, an indicator of ctDNA burden.Results
27 libraries were prepared and sequenced from the ten cfDNA samples. The duplicate rate in the ssDNA and pure-ssDNA libraries was significantly lower than in the dsDNA libraries (p?ConclusionsssDNA libraries preserve more diversity and capture more ctDNA than dsDNA libraries. The ssDNA library method is preferred when performing genomic analysis of ctDNA.
SUBMITTER: Zhu J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7216418 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Zhu Jing J Huang Jinyong J Zhang Peng P Li Qianxia Q Kohli Manish M Huang Chiang-Ching CC Wang Liang L
Molecular diagnosis & therapy 20200201 1
<h4>Background</h4>Single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) libraries have been shown to enrich shorter and more degraded DNA fragments than double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) libraries.<h4>Objective</h4>In this study, we evaluated whether ssDNA libraries captured more circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA).<h4>Methods</h4>We prepared dsDNA, ssDNA and pure-ssDNA (capture the preexisting ssDNA) libraries using ten plasma cfDNA samples. After low-pass whole genome sequencing, we calculated a du ...[more]