Investigation of Different Library Preparation and Tissue of Origin Deconvolution Methods for Urine and Plasma cfDNA Methylome Analysis

Methylation sequencing is a promising approach to infer the tissue of origin of cell-free DNA (cfDNA). In this study, a single- and a double-stranded library preparation approach were evaluated with respect to their technical biases when applied on cfDNA from plasma and urine. Additionally, tissue of origin (TOO) proportions were evaluated using two deconvolution methods. Sequencing cfDNA from urine using the double-stranded method resulted in a substantial within-read methylation bias and a lower global methylation (56.0% vs. 75.8%, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to plasma cfDNA, both of which were not observed with the single-stranded approach. Individual CpG site-based TOO deconvolution resulted in a significantly increased proportion of undetermined TOO with the double-stranded method (urine: 32.3% vs. 1.9%; plasma: 5.9% vs. 0.04%; p ≤ 0.0001), but no major differences in proportions of individual cell types. In contrast, fragment-level deconvolution led to multiple cell types, with significantly different TOO proportions between the two methods. This study thus outlines potential limitations of double-stranded library preparation for methylation analysis of cfDNA especially for urinary cfDNA. While the double-stranded method allows jagged end analysis in addition to TOO analysis, it leads to significant methylation bias in urinary cfDNA, which single-stranded methods can overcome.

[1]  U. Amstutz,et al.  Comparison of methods for donor-derived cell-free DNA quantification in plasma and urine from solid organ transplant recipients , 2023, Frontiers in Genetics.

[2]  A. Klochendler,et al.  A DNA methylation atlas of normal human cell types , 2023, Nature.

[3]  P. Jiang,et al.  Jagged Ends on Multinucleosomal Cell-Free DNA Serve as a Biomarker for Nuclease Activity and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. , 2022, Clinical Chemistry.

[4]  P. Polak,et al.  Cell-free DNA profiling informs all major complications of hematopoietic cell transplantation , 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  P. Simon,et al.  Physical activity specifically evokes release of cell-free DNA from granulocytes thereby affecting liquid biopsy , 2021, medRxiv.

[6]  T. C. Evans,et al.  Enzymatic methyl sequencing detects DNA methylation at single-base resolution from picograms of DNA , 2021, Genome research.

[7]  P. Jiang,et al.  Jagged Ends of Urinary Cell-Free DNA: Characterization and Feasibility Assessment in Bladder Cancer Detection. , 2021, Clinical chemistry.

[8]  Michael L. Waskom,et al.  Seaborn: Statistical Data Visualization , 2021, J. Open Source Softw..

[9]  V. Wong,et al.  Detection and characterization of jagged ends of double-stranded DNA in plasma , 2020, Genome research.

[10]  C. Becker,et al.  cfNOMe — A single assay for comprehensive epigenetic analyses of cell-free DNA , 2020, Genome Medicine.

[11]  Kelly M. Harkins,et al.  A ligation-based single-stranded library preparation method to analyze cell-free DNA and synthetic oligos , 2019, BMC Genomics.

[12]  Johannes L. Schönberger,et al.  SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python , 2019, Nature Methods.

[13]  Joel Nothman,et al.  SciPy 1.0-Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python , 2019, ArXiv.

[14]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Detection and Surveillance of Bladder Cancer Using Urine Tumor DNA. , 2019, Cancer discovery.

[15]  Endre Kiss,et al.  Comprehensive human cell-type methylation atlas reveals origins of circulating cell-free DNA in health and disease , 2018, Nature Communications.

[16]  Abel J Bronkhorst,et al.  The diverse origins of circulating cell‐free DNA in the human body: a critical re‐evaluation of the literature , 2018, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[17]  Y. Dor,et al.  Monitoring liver damage using hepatocyte-specific methylation markers in cell-free circulating DNA. , 2018, JCI insight.

[18]  W. Reik,et al.  Comparison of whole-genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data , 2017, Genome Biology.

[19]  M. Meyer,et al.  Single-stranded DNA library preparation from highly degraded DNA using T4 DNA ligase , 2017, Nucleic acids research.

[20]  J. Sninsky,et al.  Validation of a Clinical-Grade Assay to Measure Donor-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients. , 2016, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[21]  Min Seong Kim,et al.  Single-stranded DNA library preparation uncovers the origin and diversity of ultrashort cell-free DNA in plasma , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[22]  S. J. Singer,et al.  DNA Binding to the Silica Surface. , 2015, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[23]  N. Rosenfeld,et al.  Noninvasive Identification and Monitoring of Cancer Mutations by Targeted Deep Sequencing of Plasma DNA , 2012, Science Translational Medicine.

[24]  Devin C. Koestler,et al.  DNA methylation arrays as surrogate measures of cell mixture distribution , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[25]  Felix Krueger,et al.  Bismark: a flexible aligner and methylation caller for Bisulfite-Seq applications , 2011, Bioinform..

[26]  John D. Hunter,et al.  Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment , 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering.

[27]  Akimitsu Okamoto,et al.  Degradation of DNA by bisulfite treatment. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[28]  Y. Lo,et al.  Increased fetal DNA concentrations in the plasma of pregnant women carrying fetuses with trisomy 21. , 1999, Clinical chemistry.

[29]  OUP accepted manuscript , 2022, Clinical Chemistry.