Advanced search
1 file | 2.41 MB Add to list

Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers

Author
Organization
Abstract
Background DNA methylation biomarkers for early detection, risk stratification and treatment response in cancer have been of great interest over the past decades. Nevertheless, clinical implementation of these biomarkers is limited, as only < 1% of the identified biomarkers is translated into a clinical or commercial setting. Technical factors such as a suboptimal genomic location of the assay and inefficient primer or probe design have been emphasized as important pitfalls in biomarker research. Here, we use eleven diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer (ALX4, APC, CDKN2A, MGMT, MLH1, NDRG4, SDC2, SFRP1, SFRP2, TFPI1 and VIM), previously described in a systematic literature search, to evaluate these pitfalls. Results To assess the genomic assay location, the optimal genomic locations according to TCGA data were extracted and compared to the genomic locations used in the published assays for all eleven biomarkers. In addition, all primers and probes were technically evaluated according to several criteria, based on literature and expert opinion. Both assay location and assay design quality varied widely among studies. Conclusions Large variation in both assay location and design hinders the development of future DNA methylation biomarkers as well as inter-study comparability.
Keywords
CELL-FREE DNA, CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION, COLORECTAL-CANCER, FECAL, DNA, POTENTIAL MARKER, PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION, GENE METHYLATION, STOOL SAMPLES, SERUM, SFRP2, Epigenetics, DNA methylation, Diagnosis, Biomarkers, Assay design, Genomic location, Cancer biomarkers

Downloads

  • s13148-022-01273-z.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 2.41 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Massen, Maartje, et al. “Technical Considerations in PCR-Based Assay Design for Diagnostic DNA Methylation Cancer Biomarkers.” CLINICAL EPIGENETICS, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022, doi:10.1186/s13148-022-01273-z.
APA
Massen, M., Lommen, K., Wouters, K. A. D., Vandersmissen, J., Van Criekinge, W., Herman, J. G., … Smits, K. M. (2022). Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers. CLINICAL EPIGENETICS, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-022-01273-z
Chicago author-date
Massen, Maartje, Kim Lommen, Kim A. D. Wouters, Johan Vandersmissen, Wim Van Criekinge, James G. Herman, Veerle Melotte, Leo J. Schouten, Manon van Engeland, and Kim M. Smits. 2022. “Technical Considerations in PCR-Based Assay Design for Diagnostic DNA Methylation Cancer Biomarkers.” CLINICAL EPIGENETICS 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-022-01273-z.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Massen, Maartje, Kim Lommen, Kim A. D. Wouters, Johan Vandersmissen, Wim Van Criekinge, James G. Herman, Veerle Melotte, Leo J. Schouten, Manon van Engeland, and Kim M. Smits. 2022. “Technical Considerations in PCR-Based Assay Design for Diagnostic DNA Methylation Cancer Biomarkers.” CLINICAL EPIGENETICS 14 (1). doi:10.1186/s13148-022-01273-z.
Vancouver
1.
Massen M, Lommen K, Wouters KAD, Vandersmissen J, Van Criekinge W, Herman JG, et al. Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers. CLINICAL EPIGENETICS. 2022;14(1).
IEEE
[1]
M. Massen et al., “Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers,” CLINICAL EPIGENETICS, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022.
@article{01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E,
  abstract     = {{Background DNA methylation biomarkers for early detection, risk stratification and treatment response in cancer have been of great interest over the past decades. Nevertheless, clinical implementation of these biomarkers is limited, as only < 1% of the identified biomarkers is translated into a clinical or commercial setting. Technical factors such as a suboptimal genomic location of the assay and inefficient primer or probe design have been emphasized as important pitfalls in biomarker research. Here, we use eleven diagnostic DNA methylation biomarkers for colorectal cancer (ALX4, APC, CDKN2A, MGMT, MLH1, NDRG4, SDC2, SFRP1, SFRP2, TFPI1 and VIM), previously described in a systematic literature search, to evaluate these pitfalls. Results To assess the genomic assay location, the optimal genomic locations according to TCGA data were extracted and compared to the genomic locations used in the published assays for all eleven biomarkers. In addition, all primers and probes were technically evaluated according to several criteria, based on literature and expert opinion. Both assay location and assay design quality varied widely among studies. Conclusions Large variation in both assay location and design hinders the development of future DNA methylation biomarkers as well as inter-study comparability.}},
  articleno    = {{56}},
  author       = {{Massen, Maartje and  Lommen, Kim and  Wouters, Kim A. D. and  Vandersmissen, Johan and Van Criekinge, Wim and  Herman, James G. and  Melotte, Veerle and  Schouten, Leo J. and  van Engeland, Manon and  Smits, Kim M.}},
  issn         = {{1868-7075}},
  journal      = {{CLINICAL EPIGENETICS}},
  keywords     = {{CELL-FREE DNA,CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION,COLORECTAL-CANCER,FECAL,DNA,POTENTIAL MARKER,PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION,GENE METHYLATION,STOOL SAMPLES,SERUM,SFRP2,Epigenetics,DNA methylation,Diagnosis,Biomarkers,Assay design,Genomic location,Cancer biomarkers}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{12}},
  title        = {{Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1186/s13148-022-01273-z}},
  volume       = {{14}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: