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

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 c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Massen, Maartje, Lommen, Kim, Wouters, Kim A. D, Vandersmissen, Johan, Van Criekinge, Wim, Herman, James G, Melotte, Veerle, Schouten, Leo J, van Engeland, Manon, Smits, Kim M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Massen, Maartje
Lommen, Kim
Wouters, Kim A. D
Vandersmissen, Johan
Van Criekinge, Wim
Herman, James G
Melotte, Veerle
Schouten, Leo J
van Engeland, Manon
Smits, Kim M
description 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.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>ghent</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>oai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqtjNFKw0AQRfdBwaL9h_mBQLbFNvtYaqJQLCUttPZlmWymyWi6Czur0L-3ip_gfbkHLufeqJEuZkU2z-ePd2os8p5fMzXG6Hyk3I5c79nhAC544ZYiJr4SsIfNss4aFGoBRfACLQl3Hk4hQsvY-SCJHTytF3Cm1F-GXxMcekcRGg5njB8U5UHdnnAQGv_1vSqrcrd8ybqefLIDN5EcJhuQLUbX8xfZz-5nasjm-nl_eKvXr0ZvVpVeTIqq3h6Pe1NO_-vnG4fPXqM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Institutional Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers</title><source>Ghent University Academic Bibliography</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Massen, Maartje ; Lommen, Kim ; Wouters, Kim A. D ; Vandersmissen, Johan ; Van Criekinge, Wim ; Herman, James G ; Melotte, Veerle ; Schouten, Leo J ; van Engeland, Manon ; Smits, Kim M</creator><creatorcontrib>Massen, Maartje ; Lommen, Kim ; Wouters, Kim A. D ; Vandersmissen, Johan ; Van Criekinge, Wim ; Herman, James G ; Melotte, Veerle ; Schouten, Leo J ; van Engeland, Manon ; Smits, Kim M</creatorcontrib><description>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 &lt; 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1868-7075</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1868-7083</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Assay design ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomarkers ; Cancer biomarkers ; CELL-FREE DNA ; COLORECTAL-CANCER ; CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION ; Diagnosis ; DNA ; DNA methylation ; Epigenetics ; FECAL ; GENE METHYLATION ; Genomic location ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; POTENTIAL MARKER ; PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION ; SERUM ; SFRP2 ; STOOL SAMPLES</subject><creationdate>2022</creationdate><rights>Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0) info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,315,776,780,4010,27837</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Massen, Maartje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lommen, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wouters, Kim A. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandersmissen, Johan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Criekinge, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, James G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melotte, Veerle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schouten, Leo J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Engeland, Manon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, Kim M</creatorcontrib><title>Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers</title><description>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 &lt; 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.</description><subject>Assay design</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Cancer biomarkers</subject><subject>CELL-FREE DNA</subject><subject>COLORECTAL-CANCER</subject><subject>CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>DNA</subject><subject>DNA methylation</subject><subject>Epigenetics</subject><subject>FECAL</subject><subject>GENE METHYLATION</subject><subject>Genomic location</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>POTENTIAL MARKER</subject><subject>PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION</subject><subject>SERUM</subject><subject>SFRP2</subject><subject>STOOL SAMPLES</subject><issn>1868-7075</issn><issn>1868-7083</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ADGLB</sourceid><recordid>eNqtjNFKw0AQRfdBwaL9h_mBQLbFNvtYaqJQLCUttPZlmWymyWi6Czur0L-3ip_gfbkHLufeqJEuZkU2z-ePd2os8p5fMzXG6Hyk3I5c79nhAC544ZYiJr4SsIfNss4aFGoBRfACLQl3Hk4hQsvY-SCJHTytF3Cm1F-GXxMcekcRGg5njB8U5UHdnnAQGv_1vSqrcrd8ybqefLIDN5EcJhuQLUbX8xfZz-5nasjm-nl_eKvXr0ZvVpVeTIqq3h6Pe1NO_-vnG4fPXqM</recordid><startdate>2022</startdate><enddate>2022</enddate><creator>Massen, Maartje</creator><creator>Lommen, Kim</creator><creator>Wouters, Kim A. D</creator><creator>Vandersmissen, Johan</creator><creator>Van Criekinge, Wim</creator><creator>Herman, James G</creator><creator>Melotte, Veerle</creator><creator>Schouten, Leo J</creator><creator>van Engeland, Manon</creator><creator>Smits, Kim M</creator><scope>ADGLB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2022</creationdate><title>Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers</title><author>Massen, Maartje ; Lommen, Kim ; Wouters, Kim A. D ; Vandersmissen, Johan ; Van Criekinge, Wim ; Herman, James G ; Melotte, Veerle ; Schouten, Leo J ; van Engeland, Manon ; Smits, Kim M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Assay design</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Cancer biomarkers</topic><topic>CELL-FREE DNA</topic><topic>COLORECTAL-CANCER</topic><topic>CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>DNA</topic><topic>DNA methylation</topic><topic>Epigenetics</topic><topic>FECAL</topic><topic>GENE METHYLATION</topic><topic>Genomic location</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>POTENTIAL MARKER</topic><topic>PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION</topic><topic>SERUM</topic><topic>SFRP2</topic><topic>STOOL SAMPLES</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Massen, Maartje</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lommen, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wouters, Kim A. D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vandersmissen, Johan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Criekinge, Wim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Herman, James G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melotte, Veerle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schouten, Leo J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Engeland, Manon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smits, Kim M</creatorcontrib><collection>Ghent University Academic Bibliography</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Massen, Maartje</au><au>Lommen, Kim</au><au>Wouters, Kim A. D</au><au>Vandersmissen, Johan</au><au>Van Criekinge, Wim</au><au>Herman, James G</au><au>Melotte, Veerle</au><au>Schouten, Leo J</au><au>van Engeland, Manon</au><au>Smits, Kim M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers</atitle><date>2022</date><risdate>2022</risdate><issn>1868-7075</issn><issn>1868-7083</issn><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 &lt; 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.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1868-7075
ispartof
issn 1868-7075
1868-7083
language eng
recordid cdi_ghent_librecat_oai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E
source Ghent University Academic Bibliography; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings; PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Assay design
Biology and Life Sciences
Biomarkers
Cancer biomarkers
CELL-FREE DNA
COLORECTAL-CANCER
CPG ISLAND HYPERMETHYLATION
Diagnosis
DNA
DNA methylation
Epigenetics
FECAL
GENE METHYLATION
Genomic location
Medicine and Health Sciences
POTENTIAL MARKER
PROMOTER HYPERMETHYLATION
SERUM
SFRP2
STOOL SAMPLES
title Technical considerations in PCR-based assay design for diagnostic DNA methylation cancer biomarkers
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T20%3A45%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-ghent&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Technical%20considerations%20in%20PCR-based%20assay%20design%20for%20diagnostic%20DNA%20methylation%20cancer%20biomarkers&rft.au=Massen,%20Maartje&rft.date=2022&rft.issn=1868-7075&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cghent%3Eoai_archive_ugent_be_01GWXYRNM91PKF1A28FRSZZW9E%3C/ghent%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true