↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of pre-analytical factors affecting plasma DNA analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of pre-analytical factors affecting plasma DNA analysis
Published in
Scientific Reports, May 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-25810-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Havell Markus, Tania Contente-Cuomo, Maria Farooq, Winnie S. Liang, Mitesh J. Borad, Shivan Sivakumar, Simon Gollins, Nhan L. Tran, Harshil D. Dhruv, Michael E. Berens, Alan Bryce, Aleksandar Sekulic, Antoni Ribas, Jeffrey M. Trent, Patricia M. LoRusso, Muhammed Murtaza

Abstract

Pre-analytical factors can significantly affect circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis. However, there are few robust methods to rapidly assess sample quality and the impact of pre-analytical processing. To address this gap and to evaluate effects of DNA extraction methods and blood collection tubes on cfDNA yield and fragment size, we developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay with 5 short and 4 long amplicons targeting single copy genomic loci. Using this assay, we compared 7 cfDNA extraction kits and found cfDNA yield and fragment size vary significantly. We also compared 3 blood collection protocols using plasma samples from 23 healthy volunteers (EDTA tubes processed within 1 hour and Cell-free DNA Blood Collection Tubes processed within 24 and 72 hours) and found no significant differences in cfDNA yield, fragment size and background noise between these protocols. In 219 clinical samples, cfDNA fragments were shorter in plasma samples processed immediately after venipuncture compared to archived samples, suggesting contribution of background DNA by lysed peripheral blood cells. In summary, we have described a multiplexed ddPCR assay to assess quality of cfDNA samples prior to downstream molecular analyses and we have evaluated potential sources of pre-analytical variation in cfDNA studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 23%
Unspecified 10 14%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 39%
Unspecified 16 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 6 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#337,996
of 13,243,534 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#4,033
of 63,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,428
of 269,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,243,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 63,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 269,040 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them