NIH, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD) NIH - National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute DCTD - Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

Comparison of UV spectrometry and fluorometry-based methods for quantification of cell-free DNA in red cell components.

Author(s): Khetan D, Gupta N, Chaudhary R, Shukla JS

Publication: Asian J Transfus Sci, 2019, Vol. 13, Page 95-99

PubMed ID: 31896914 PubMed Review Paper? No

Purpose of Paper

This paper compared spectrophotometry and fluorometry quantification of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) isolated from red blood cell (RBC) supernatants.

Conclusion of Paper

cfDNA was quantifiable by both methods in 92 of the specimens but were too low for quantification by either method in the remaining seven specimens. The median measured cfDNA concentration was higher when measured by NanoDrop than when measured by Qubit and measured concentrations were only very weakly correlated between the two methods.

Studies

  1. Study Purpose

    This study compared spectrophotometry and fluorometry quantification of cfDNA isolated from RBC supernatants. Whole blood was collected from 99 blood donors and packed RBCs (PRBCs) were obtained by the buffy coat-depletion method using Cryofuge 6000i and a Terumo Automatic Component Extractor–II. PRBCs were stored in the refrigerator for 21 days. After storage, PRBCs were centrifuged at 1050 rpm for 9 min at 4°C followed by 3000 rpm for 5 min and then the supernatant was collected and stored at or below −40°C. DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit and quantified by a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and a Qubit fluorometer using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit.

    Summary of Findings:

    Although DNA quantification was generally very close to the estimated concentration for both methods when using a known standard at low dilutions, only Qubit was found to be both precise and accurate when DNA was highly diluted (1.35–0.16 ng/μl). cfDNA was quantifiable by both methods in 92 of the 99 specimens but were too low for quantification by either method in the remaining seven specimens. The median measured cfDNA concentration was higher when measured by NanoDrop than when measured by Qubit (1.60 ng/μl versus 0.80 ng/μl, P<0.05). Further, measured concentrations were only very weakly correlated between the two methods (R2=0.021, significance not determined).

    Biospecimens
    Preservative Types
    • Frozen
    Diagnoses:
    • Not specified
    • Normal
    Platform:
    AnalyteTechnology Platform
    DNA Spectrophotometry
    DNA Fluorometry
    Pre-analytical Factors:
    ClassificationPre-analytical FactorValue(s)
    Spectrophotometry Specific Technology platform NanoDrop
    Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit

You Recently Viewed  

News and Announcements

  • Most Downloaded SOPs in 2024

  • New Articles on the GTEx Project are Now FREELY Available!

  • Just Published!

  • More...