Cited by 111Telomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceEpigenetics and DNA MethylationGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Telomere length varies by DNA extraction method: implications for epidemiologic research

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both shorter and longer telomeres in peripheral blood leukocyte (PBL) DNA have been associated with cancer risk. However, associations remain inconsistent across studies of the same cancer type. This study compares DNA preparation methods to determine telomere length from patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We examined PBL relative telomere length (RTL) measured by quantitative PCR (qPCR) in 1,033 patients with colorectal cancer and 2,952 healthy controls. DNA was extracted with phenol/chloroform, PureGene, or QIAamp. RESULTS: We observed differences in RTL depending on DNA extraction method (P < 0.001). Phenol/chloroform-extracted DNA had a mean RTL (T/S ratio) of 0.78 (range 0.01-6.54) compared with PureGene-extracted DNA (mean RTL of 0.75; range 0.00-12.33). DNA extracted by QIAamp yielded a mean RTL of 0.38 (range 0.02-3.69). We subsequently compared RTL measured by qPCR from an independent set of 20 colorectal cancer cases and 24 normal controls in PBL DNA extracted by each of the three extraction methods. The range of RTL measured by qPCR from QIAamp-extracted DNA (0.17-0.58) was less than from either PureGene or phenol/chloroform (ranges, 0.04-2.67 and 0.32-2.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: RTL measured by qPCR from QIAamp-extracted DNA was less than from either PureGene or phenol/chloroform (P < 0.001). IMPACT: Differences in DNA extraction method may contribute to the discrepancies between studies seeking to find an association between the risk of cancer or other diseases and RTL.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-0409

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cunningham, J. M., Johnson, R. A., Litzelman, K., Skinner, H. G., Seo, S., Engelman, C. D., Vanderboom, R. J., Kimmel, G. W., Gangnon, R. E., Riegert-Johnson, D. L., Baron, J. A., Potter, J. D., Haile, R., Buchanan, D. D., Jenkins, M. A., Rider, D. N., Thibodeau, S. N., Petersen, G. M., & Boardman, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Authors' Affiliations: Departments of 1Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, 2Health Sciences Research, and 3Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine; 4Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, 5Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota; Departments of 6Population Health Sciences, and 7Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; 8University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; 9Division of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida; 10Biostatistics & Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth University, Hanover, New Hampshire; 11Public Health Sciences Division, Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; 12The Stanford Cancer Institute and Stanford School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford, California; 13Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Clive Berghofer Cancer Research Centre, Brisbane, Queensland; and 14Melbourn
Corresponding author
Boardman, Lisa A.
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
22
Issue
11
Pages
2047-2054
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2056176559
Cited by
111
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 2
FWCI
10.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T35HL007690)
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA074799, U24CA074799, UM1CA167551, U01CA074794, CA-96-011, U01CA074806, P20CA102701, U01CA074783, U01CA074800, P50CA102701, U24CA097735, U24CA074794, U24CA074800, U24CA074783, R01CA132718, U01CA097735, P30CA015083, P30CA014520)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK084567)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Telomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
telomere length, DNA extraction methods, colorectal cancer, phenol-chloroform extraction, relative telomere length, measurement variability, cancer risk biomarkers
MeSH terms
DNA, DNA, Neoplasm, Female, Humans, Leukocytes, Male, Middle Aged, Colorectal Neoplasms, Epidemiologic Studies, Case-Control Studies, Telomere

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