Back

Urine as a non-invasive alternative to blood for germline and somatic mutation detection in hepatocellular carcinoma

Kim, A. K.; Lin, S. Y.; Jin, S.; Cui, Y.; Gade, T. P.; Shieh, F.-S.; Chao, M.; Shieh, J.; Cheng, J.; Hamilton, J. P.; Hann, H.-W.; Goryunov, D.; Wang, Z.; Su, Y.-h.

2021-12-05 gastroenterology
10.1101/2021.12.03.21266943
Show abstract

Background & AimsCell-free DNA (cfDNA) has advanced cancer genetic profiling through liquid biopsy. While plasma is traditionally the primary source, emerging evidence highlights urinary cfDNA as a novel and noninvasive alternative. This study aimed to comprehensively assess transrenal DNA (trDNA) as a novel noninvasive biomarker source in HCC patients, compared to blood-based liquid biopsy. Approach & ResultsHBV DNA was used as a biomarker for trDNA. HBV-targeted and HCC-focused next generation sequencing (NGS) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) were used to compare fragment insert-sizes, the genome coverage, and germline genotyping accuracy. Urinary cfDNA overall exhibited a predominantly mononucelosomal pattern similar to plasma cfDNA, but with shorter fragments, broader size distribution and a more pronounced 10-bp periodicity. In contrast, trDNA were shorter and more variable among all patients. In HCC patients, trDNA was even shorter, with distinct 4-mer end motifs, compared to non-HCC trDNA. Higher concentrations of HCC-distinctive 4-mer end motif and TP53 mutations were found in urine compared to plasma. The overall genome coverage breadth by WGS was similar between urine and plasma cfDNA, with a higher fraction of covered cancer-associated mutation hotspots in urine cfDNA. In 101 HCC patients, there was a 78% overall concordance of HCC-associated mutations (TP53, CTNNB1, and hTERT) and in select 15 patients, 97% overall position-level concordance by targeted NGS between plasma and urine cfDNA. ConclusionUrine cfDNA has comparable features with distinct characteristics to plasma cfDNA and is a promising tool for liver cancer studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 41%
12.5%
2
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
based on 24 papers
Top 0.1%
11.1%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 16%
10.2%
4
Gastroenterology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.4%
7.5%
5
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 1%
4.5%
6
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
based on 13 papers
Top 0.2%
4.5%
50% of probability mass above
7
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
4.5%
8
Diagnostics
based on 36 papers
Top 1%
2.8%
9
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 3%
2.5%
10
Biomedicines
based on 21 papers
Top 0.8%
2.4%
11
BMC Cancer
based on 21 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
12
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 8%
2.3%
13
British Journal of Cancer
based on 22 papers
Top 2%
2.2%
14
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
based on 10 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Journal of Personalized Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
16
Gut
based on 17 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 6%
1.3%
18
International Journal of Cancer
based on 18 papers
Top 2%
1.2%
19
Med
based on 26 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Viruses
based on 79 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
21
mSystems
based on 16 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
22
Gut Microbes
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
24
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 30%
0.8%
25
EMBO Molecular Medicine
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 41%
0.8%
27
Cell Reports Medicine
based on 49 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
28
PLOS Genetics
based on 39 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
29
Clinical and Translational Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 2%
0.7%