The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards standardisation of cell-free DNA measurement in plasma: controls for extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and quantification
Open accessAbstract
Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is becoming an important clinical analyte for prenatal testing, cancer diagnosis and cancer monitoring. The extraction stage is critical in ensuring clinical sensitivity of analytical methods measuring minority nucleic acid fractions, such as foetal-derived sequences in predominantly maternal cfDNA. Consequently, quality controls are required for measurement of extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and yield for validation of cfDNA methods. We evaluated the utility of an external DNA spike for monitoring these parameters in a study comparing three specific cfDNA extraction methods [QIAamp circulating nucleic acid (CNA) kit, NucleoSpin Plasma XS (NS) kit and FitAmp plasma/serum DNA isolation (FA) kit] with the commonly used QIAamp DNA blood mini (DBM) kit. We found that the extraction efficiencies of the kits ranked in the order CNA kit > DBM kit > NS kit > FA kit, and the CNA and NS kits gave a better representation of smaller DNA fragments in the extract than the DBM kit. We investigated means of improved reporting of cfDNA yield by comparing quantitative PCR measurements of seven different reference gene assays in plasma samples and validating these with digital PCR. We noted that the cfDNA quantities based on measurement of some target genes (e.g. TERT) were, on average, more than twofold higher than those of other assays (e.g. ERV3). We conclude that analysis and averaging of multiple reference genes using a GeNorm approach gives a more reliable estimate of total cfDNA quantity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments
Bustin, S. A., Benes, V., Garson, J. A., Hellemans, J., Huggett, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R., Nolan, T., Pfaffl, M. W., Shipley, G. L., et al. (2009) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797 · Cited by 16,303
Self-citationHigh-throughput droplet digital PCR system for absolute quantitation of DNA copy number
Hindson, B. J., Ness, K. D., Masquelier, D. A., Belgrader, P., Heredia, N. J., Makarewicz, A. J., Bright, I. J., Lucero, M. Y., Hiddessen, A. L., Legler, T. C., et al. (2011) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac202028g · Cited by 2,792
Non-invasive analysis of acquired resistance to cancer therapy by sequencing of plasma DNA
Murtaza, M., Dawson, S.-J., Tsui, D. W. Y., Gale, D., Forshew, T., Piskorz, A. M., Parkinson, C., Chin, S.-F., Kingsbury, Z., Wong, A. S. C., et al. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12065 · Cited by 1,624
Huggett, J. F., Foy, C. A., Benes, V., Emslie, K., Garson, J. A., Haynes, R., Hellemans, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R. D., Nolan, T., et al. (2013) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2013.206375 · Cited by 859
Self-citationWhale, A. S., Huggett, J. F., Cowen, S., Speirs, V., Shaw, J., Ellison, S., Foy, C. A., & Scott, D. J. (2012) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gks203 · Cited by 453 · cited 2×
“91 nL per droplet, and confidence intervals were calculated as described previously [45].”
MethodSelf-citationGiacona, M. B., Ruben, G. C., Iczkowski, K. A., Roos, T. B., Porter, D. M., & Sorenson, G. D. (1998) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/00006676-199807000-00012 · Cited by 387
Isolation and characterization of DNA from the plasma of cancer patients
Stroun, M., Anker, P., Lyautey, J., Lederrey, C., & Maurice, P. A. (1987) · European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1016/0277-5379(87)90266-5 · Cited by 373 · cited 1×
“The discovery of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood has provided an accessible source of genetic material from foetal tissue [1], solid tumours [2, 3] or solid organ transplants [4].”
BackgroundDifferential susceptibility of PCR reactions to inhibitors: an important and unrecognised phenomenon
Huggett, J. F., Novak, T., Garson, J. A., Green, C., Morris-Jones, S. D., Miller, R. F., & Zumla, A. (2008) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-1-70 · Cited by 250 · cited 1×
“This is in agreement with our earlier observations [51].”
ResultSelf-citationHahn, S., Jackson, L. G., Kolla, V., Mahyuddin, A. P., & Choolani, M. (2009) · Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1586/erm.09.43 · Cited by 32
Cited by
Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer
Siravegna, G., Marsoni, S., Siena, S., & Bardelli, A. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.14 · Cited by 1,908
Circulating Tumor DNA as a Liquid Biopsy for Cancer
Heitzer, E., Ulz, P., & Geigl, J. B. (2015) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.222679 · Cited by 767
Considerations for Digital PCR as an Accurate Molecular Diagnostic Tool
Huggett, J. F., Cowen, S., & Foy, C. A. (2015) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2014.221366 · Cited by 444
Self-citationGorgannezhad, L., Umer, M., Islam, M. N., Nguyen, N.-T., & Shiddiky, M. J. A. (2018) · Lab on a Chip · doi:10.1039/c8lc00100f · Cited by 312
Metadata
- Authors
- Devonshire, A. S., Whale, A. S., Gutteridge, A., Jones, G., Cowen, S., Foy, C. A., & Huggett, J. F.
- Venue
- Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
- Published
- 2014-05-24
- Volume
- 406
- Issue
- 26
- Pages
- 6499-6512
- ISSN
- 1618-2642 (ISSN-L)
- 1618-2650
- OpenAlex
- W2082540681
- Cited by
- 299
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 20.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards standardisation of cell-free DNA measurement in plasma: controls for extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and quantification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00216-014-7835-3
- The paper
- Devonshire, A. S., Whale, A. S., Gutteridge, A., Jones, G., Cowen, S., Foy, C. A., & Huggett, J. F. (2014). Towards standardisation of cell-free DNA measurement in plasma: controls for extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and quantification. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-014-7835-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
