Multicenter Evaluation of Circulating Plasma MicroRNA Extraction Technologies for the Development of Clinically Feasible Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR and Next-Generation Sequencing Analytical Work Flows.

BACKGROUND: In human body fluids, microRNA (miRNA) can be found as circulating cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA), as well as secreted into extracellular vesicles (EVmiRNA). miRNAs are being intensively evaluated as minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers in patients with cancer. The growing interest in developing clinical assays for circulating miRNA necessitates careful consideration of confounding effects of preanalytical and analytical parameters. METHODS: By using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), we compared extraction efficiencies of 5 different protocols for cfmiRNA and 2 protocols for EVmiRNA isolation in a multicentric manner. The efficiency of the different extraction methods was evaluated by measuring exogenously spiked cel-miR-39 and 6 targeted miRNAs in plasma from 20 healthy individuals. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the tested methods. Although column-based extraction methods were highly effective for the isolation of endogenous miRNA, phenol extraction combined with column-based miRNA purification and ultracentrifugation resulted in lower quality and quantity of isolated miRNA. Among all extraction methods, the ubiquitously expressed miR-16 was represented with high abundance when compared with other targeted miRNAs. In addition, the use of miR-16 as an endogenous control for normalization of quantification cycle values resulted in a decreased variability of column-based cfmiRNA extraction methods. Cluster analysis of normalized NGS counts clearly indicated a method-dependent bias. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of plasma miRNA extraction methods affects the selection of potential miRNA marker candidates and mechanistic interpretation of results, which should be done with caution, particularly across studies using different protocols

Multicenter evaluation of circulating plasma microRNA extraction technologies for the development of clinically feasible reverse transcription quantitative PCR and next-generation sequencing analytical work flows

BACKGROUND: In human body fluids, microRNA (miRNA) can be found as circulating cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA), as well as secreted into extracellular vesicles (EVmiRNA). miRNAs are being intensively evaluated as minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers in patients with cancer. The growing interest in developing clinical assays for circulating miRNA necessitates careful consideration of confounding effects of preanalytical and analytical parameters. METHODS: By using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), we compared extraction efficiencies of 5 different protocols for cfmiRNA and 2 protocols for EVmiRNA isolation in a multicentric manner. The efficiency of the different extraction methods was evaluated by measuring exogenously spiked cel-miR-39 and 6 targeted miRNAs in plasma from 20 healthy individuals. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the tested methods. Although column-based extraction methods were highly effective for the isolation of endogenous miRNA, phenol extraction combined with column-based miRNA purification and ultracentrifugation resulted in lower quality and quantity of isolated miRNA. Among all extraction methods, the ubiquitously expressed miR-16 was represented with high abundance when compared with other targeted miRNAs. In addition, the use of miR-16 as an endogenous control for normalization of quantification cycle values resulted in a decreased variability of column-based cfmiRNA extraction methods. Cluster analysis of normalized NGS counts clearly indicated a method-dependent bias. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of plasma miRNA extraction methods affects the selection of potential miRNA marker candidates and mechanistic interpretation of results, which should be done with caution, particularly across studies using different protocols. © 2019 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

Pre-analytical factors affecting the establishment of a single tube assay for multiparameter liquid biopsy detection in melanoma patients

The combination of liquid biomarkers from a single blood tube can provide more comprehensive information on tumor development and progression in cancer patients compared to single analysis. Here, we evaluated whether a combined analysis of circulating tumor cells (CTCs), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), and circulating cell-free microRNA (miRNA) in total plasma and extracellular vesicles (EV) from the same blood sample is feasible and how the results are influenced by the choice of different blood tubes. Peripheral blood from 20 stage IV melanoma patients and five healthy donors (HD) was collected in EDTA, Streck, and Transfix tubes. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell fraction was used for CTC analysis, whereas plasma and EV fractions were used for ctDNA mutation and miRNA analysis. Mutations in cell-free circulating DNA were detected in 67% of patients, with no significant difference between the tubes. CTC was detected in only EDTA blood and only in 15% of patients. miRNA NGS (next-generation sequencing) results were highly influenced by the collection tubes and could only be performed from EDTA and Streck tubes due to hemolysis in Transfix tubes. No overlap of significantly differentially expressed miRNA (patients versus HD) could be found between the tubes in total plasma, whereas eight miRNA were commonly differentially regulated in the EV fraction. In summary, high-quality CTCs, ctDNA, and miRNA data from a single blood tube can be obtained. However, the choice of blood collection tubes is a critical pre-analytical variable. © 2020 The Authors. Published by FEBS Press and John Wiley & Sons Ltd