Workshop report on the extraction of foetal DNA from maternal plasma.
Author(s): Legler TJ, Liu Z, Mavrou A, Finning K, Hromadnikova I, Galbiati S, Meaney C, Hultén MA, Crea F, Olsson ML, Maddocks DG, Huang D, Fisher SA, Sprenger-Haussels M, Soussan AA, van der Schoot CE
Publication: Prenat Diagn, 2007, Vol. 27, Page 824-9
PubMed ID: 17604339 PubMed Review Paper? No
Purpose of Paper
The purpose of this paper was to compare the reliability of RhD detection and cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) yield among manual and automated DNA extraction kits.
Conclusion of Paper
While Amplification of RhD was possible in pooled plasma specimens that differed in cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) concentration using 5 of the 6 manual extraction methods and all 5 automated extracted methods evaluated. Use of the QIAamp midi kit did not reliably allow for RhD detection in pooled plasma with low ccfDNA concentrations. Among the manual extraction methods, use of the QIAamp DSP Virus kit resulted in the highest ccfDNA yields. Although use of the QIAamp virus MDx kit on BioRobot MDx resulted in the highest yields of the automated methods from specimens with intermediate or high fetal cell-free DNA concentrations, only the Tecan workstation with magnetic tips and Magna Pure LC performed well for plasma with low concentrations of cell-free DNA.
Studies
-
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of RhD detection and cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) yield among manual and automated DNA extraction methods. EDTA plasma obtained from 252 RhD-negative pregnant women was pooled based on RhD cycle threshold value to create three pools with different cell-free fetal DNA concentrations. DNA was distributed by an unspecified method to each of the 12 laboratories in the Special Non-Invasive Advance in Fetal and Neonatal Evaluation Network of Excellence (SAFE-NoE) as well as to Qiagen. After arrival each laboratory extracted ccfDNA from each of the plasma pools in triplicate by their chosen method(s). Fetal DNA was identified and quantified based on amplification of RhD exons 5 and 7.
Summary of Findings:
While amplification of RhD was possible from all three pools with differing ccfDNA concentrations when DNA was extracted with 5 of the 6 manual methods and all 5 automated methods examined, amplification of RhD failed in 10 out of 11 reactions when specimens with intermediate or low cffDNA concentration were extracted using the QIAamp midi kit. Amplification of RhD also became unreliable when specimens were extracted using the QIAamp mini kit and the centrifugation step to dry the column was omitted. Importantly, cffDNA yield was highest when extracted manually using the QIAamp DSP Virus kit (p<0.005). Of the automated methods evaluated, the QIAamp virus MDx kit on the BioRobot MDx resulted in the highest yields from specimens with intermediate or high fetal cell-free DNA concentrations, but the yield from the low concentration pool was at the detection limit. In contrast, both the Tecan workstation with magnetic tips and Magna Pure LC kits performed well for specimens with low concentrations of cell-free DNA.
Biospecimens
Preservative Types
- Frozen
Diagnoses:
- Pregnant
Platform:
Analyte Technology Platform DNA Real-time qPCR Pre-analytical Factors:
Classification Pre-analytical Factor Value(s) Analyte Extraction and Purification Analyte isolation method QIAamp DSP Virus Kit
High Pure PCR Template Preparation Kit
QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit
QIAamp DNA Blood Midi Kit
CST genomic DNA purification kit
Magna Pure LC kit
QIAamp virus MDx kit on BioRobot MDx
MagAttract virus mini M48 kit on BioRobot M48
EZ1 virus mini kit on BioRobot EZ1
In-house protocol using magnetic beads
Tecan workstation with magnetic tips