Back

Long-read sequencing identifies aberrant fragmentation patterns linked to elevated cell-free DNA levels in cancer

Berman, B. P.; Erdman, S. A.; Wheeler, C.; Cayford, J.; Turatsinze, J.-V.; Ouzounova, M.; Piecyk, M.; Herzog, M.; Payen-Gay, L.; Walter, T.; Kelly, T. K.

2025-09-12 cancer biology
10.1101/2024.05.02.592182 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) carries fragmentation patterns that serve as biomarkers of cancer, but standard sequencing approaches miss large portions of the fragment length spectrum. In addition to altered fragmentation patterns, cancer patients often have elevated levels of cfDNA, but the underlying mechanisms are not well understood. To address both questions, we analyzed cancer cases with elevated cfDNA levels using Oxford Nanopore (ONT) sequencing. Long-read ONT sequencing captures the full spectrum of cfDNA fragment lengths and enables cell type inference based on DNA methylation markers. One cohort included cases from several cancer types with elevated cfDNA levels, and a second consisted of patients from a single neuroendocrine cancer study. In each cohort, cases with the highest cfDNA levels showed either hypofragmentation (excess fragments of 1-4 kb) or hyperfragmentation (excess fragments <145 bp). Hypofragmentation reflected blood cell DNA released during delayed sample processing, bearing DNASE1L3-associated hallmarks, while in one cohort we also observed ultra-long fragments (>7.5 kb) lacking these hallmarks and consistent with plasma lysis. By contrast, hyperfragmented samples often had elevated levels of both cancer- and blood-derived DNA, indicating an inflammatory or other system process rather than cancer-specific origin. These findings clarify the distinction between biological and artifactual fragmentation, expand our understanding of cfDNA biology, and highlight long-read sequencing as a powerful tool for biomarker discovery.

Published in Genome Biology (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Medicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
9.8%
Genome Biology · published here
637 papers in training set
Top 1%
9.7%
3
Epigenomics
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.7%
4
Epigenetics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.8%
6
Molecular Cancer Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 34%
3.2%
8
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
9
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 40%
2.4%
50% of probability mass above
10
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.4%
11
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 45%
2.1%
12
Molecular Cancer
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
13
NAR Cancer
37 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.7%
15
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
16
Clinical and Translational Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
17
Epigenetics & Chromatin
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
18
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
19
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
20
Acta Neuropathologica Communications
89 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
21
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
22
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
23
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.1%
24
Cells
249 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.1%
25
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
26
Clinical Epigenetics
60 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
27
Cell Genomics
172 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
28
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 27%
0.8%
29
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
30
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%