DNA Qualification Workflow for Next Generation Sequencing of Histopathological Samples

Histopathological samples are a treasure-trove of DNA for clinical research. However, the quality of DNA can vary depending on the source or extraction method applied. Thus a standardized and cost-effective workflow for the qualification of DNA preparations is essential to guarantee interlaboratory reproducible results. The qualification process consists of the quantification of double strand DNA (dsDNA) and the assessment of its suitability for downstream applications, such as high-throughput next-generation sequencing. We tested the two most frequently used instrumentations to define their role in this process: NanoDrop, based on UV spectroscopy, and Qubit 2.0, which uses fluorochromes specifically binding dsDNA. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) was used as the reference technique as it simultaneously assesses DNA concentration and suitability for PCR amplification. We used 17 genomic DNAs from 6 fresh-frozen (FF) tissues, 6 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues, 3 cell lines, and 2 commercial preparations. Intra- and inter-operator variability was negligible, and intra-methodology variability was minimal, while consistent inter-methodology divergences were observed. In fact, NanoDrop measured DNA concentrations higher than Qubit and its consistency with dsDNA quantification by qPCR was limited to high molecular weight DNA from FF samples and cell lines, where total DNA and dsDNA quantity virtually coincide. In partially degraded DNA from FFPE samples, only Qubit proved highly reproducible and consistent with qPCR measurements. Multiplex PCR amplifying 191 regions of 46 cancer-related genes was designated the downstream application, using 40 ng dsDNA from FFPE samples calculated by Qubit. All but one sample produced amplicon libraries suitable for next-generation sequencing. NanoDrop UV-spectrum verified contamination of the unsuccessful sample. In conclusion, as qPCR has high costs and is labor intensive, an alternative effective standard workflow for qualification of DNA preparations should include the sequential combination of NanoDrop and Qubit to assess the purity and quantity of dsDNA, respectively.

[1]  K. Manchester.  Use of UV methods for measurement of protein and nucleic acid concentrations. , 1996, BioTechniques.

[2]  Samuel Aparicio,et al.  Opening Pandora's Box--the new biology of driver mutations and clonal evolution in cancer as revealed by next generation sequencing. , 2012, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[3]  Shengyue Wang,et al.  Exploring the cancer genome in the era of next-generation sequencing , 2012, Frontiers of Medicine.

[4]  S. Gabriel,et al.  Advances in understanding cancer genomes through second-generation sequencing , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[5]  Leming Shi,et al.  Next-generation sequencing and its applications in molecular diagnostics , 2011, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[6]  Paul T Spellman,et al.  Tackling formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue with next-generation sequencing. , 2012, Cancer discovery.

[7]  M. Dietel,et al.  Personalized cancer medicine and the future of pathology , 2011, Virchows Archiv.

[8]  Huberman Ja.  Importance of measuring nucleic acid absorbance at 240 nm as well as at 260 and 280 nm. , 1995 .

[9]  D. James,et al.  American Biotechnology Laboratory , 2002 .

[10]  Glasel Ja.  Validity of nucleic acid purities monitored by 260nm/280nm absorbance ratios. , 1995 .

[11]  Michael D. Abràmoff,et al.  Image processing with ImageJ , 2004 .

[12]  Sebastian Riedel,et al.  Comparison of the TLDA with the Nanodrop and the reference Qubit system , 2011 .

[13]  Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue,et al.  A new branch on the tree: next-generation sequencing in the study of cancer evolution. , 2012, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[14]  K. Manchester.  Value of A260/A280 ratios for measurement of purity of nucleic acids. , 1995, BioTechniques.

[15]  J. Vilkki,et al.  Comparison of different DNA extraction methods from hair root follicles to genotype Finnish Landrace boars with the Illumina PorcineSNP60 BeadChip , 2008 .

[16]  Philippe R. Desjardins,et al.  NanoDrop microvolume quantitation of nucleic acids. , 2010, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[17]  J. Choi,et al.  Comparisons of Three Automated Systems for Genomic DNA Extraction in a Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory , 2009, Yonsei medical journal.

[18]  F. Real,et al.  Genetic profile of 22 pancreatic carcinoma cell lines , 2001, Virchows Archiv.

[19]  W. Coleman,et al.  Clinical genotyping: the need for interrogation of single nucleotide polymorphisms and mutations in the clinical laboratory. , 2006, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[20]  S. Chanock,et al.  Performance of high-throughput DNA quantification methods , 2003, BMC biotechnology.

[21]  K. Meade,et al.  Technical note: Comparative analyses of the quality and yield of genomic DNA from invasive and noninvasive, automated and manual extraction methods. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[22]  C. Robertson.  Spectrophotometry's next-generation technology , 2003 .

[23]  E. Gaffney,et al.  Maintaining Breast Cancer Specimen Integrity and Individual or Simultaneous Extraction of Quality DNA, RNA, and Proteins from Allprotect-Stabilized and Nonstabilized Tissue Samples. , 2011, Biopreservation and biobanking.

[24]  M. Cronin,et al.  Whole cancer genome sequencing by next-generation methods. , 2011, American journal of clinical pathology.

[25]  Tong Zhang,et al.  Biases during DNA extraction of activated sludge samples revealed by high throughput sequencing , 2012, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology.