| Title |
Study of Preanalytic and Analytic Variables for Clinical Next-Generation Sequencing of Circulating Cell-Free Nucleic Acid
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.03.003 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meenakshi Mehrotra, Rajesh R. Singh, Wei Chen, Richard S.P. Huang, Alaa A. Almohammedsalim, Bedia A. Barkoh, Crystal M. Simien, Marcos Hernandez, Carmen Behrens, Keyur P. Patel, Mark J. Routbort, Russell R. Broaddus, L. Jeffrey Medeiros, Ignacio I. Wistuba, Scott Kopetz, Rajyalakshmi Luthra |
| Abstract |
Detection of mutations in plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) by next-generation sequencing (NGS) has opened up new possibilities for monitoring treatment response and disease progression in patients with solid tumors. However, implementation of cfDNA genotyping in diagnostic laboratories requires systematic assessment of preanalytical parameters and analytical performance of NGS platforms. We assessed the effects of peripheral blood collection tube and plasma separation time on cfDNA yield and integrity and performance of the Ion PGM, Proton, and MiSeq NGS platforms. cfDNA from 31 patients with diverse advanced cancers and known tumor mutation status was deep sequenced using targeted hotspot panels. Forty-five of 52 expected mutations and two additional mutations (KRAS p.Q61H and EZH2 p.Y646F) were detected in plasma through a custom bioinformatics pipeline. We observed comparable cfDNA concentration/integrity between collection tubes within 16 hours of plasma separation and equal analytical performance among NGS platforms, with 1% detection sensitivity for cfDNA genotyping. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 69 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,051,091
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
#956
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,977
of 324,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.