Search

BACKGROUND:Among emerging circulating biomarkers, miRNA has the potential to detect lung cancer and follow the course of the disease. However, miRNA analysis deserves further standardization before implementation into clinical trials or practice. Here, we performed international ring experiments to explore (pre)-analytical factors relevant to the outcome of miRNA blood tests in the context of the EU network CANCER-ID. METHODS:Cell-free (cfmiRNA) and extracellular vesicle-derived miRNA (EVmiRNA) were extracted using the miRNeasy Serum/Plasma Advanced, and the ExoRNeasy Maxi kit, respectively, in a plasma cohort of 27 NSCLC patients and 20 healthy individuals. Extracted miRNA was investigated using small RNA sequencing and hybridization platforms. Validation of the identified miRNA candidates was performed using quantitative PCR. RESULTS:We demonstrate the highest read counts in healthy individuals and NSCLC patients using QIAseq. Moreover, QIAseq showed 15.9% and 162.9% more cfmiRNA and EVmiRNA miRNA counts, respectively, in NSCLC patients compared to healthy control samples. However, a systematic comparison of selected miRNAs revealed little agreement between high-throughput platforms, thus some miRNAs are detected with one technology, but not with the other. Adding to this, 35% (9 of 26) of selected miRNAs in the cfmiRNA and 42% (11 of 26) in the EVmiRNA fraction were differentially expressed by at least one qPCR platform; about half of the miRNAs (54%) were concordant for both platforms. CONCLUSIONS:Changing of (pre)-analytical methods of miRNA analysis has a significant impact on blood test results and is therefore a major confounding factor. In addition, to confirm miRNA biomarker candidates screening studies should be followed by targeted validation using an independent platform or technology.

BACKGROUND:Among emerging circulating biomarkers, miRNA has the potential to detect lung cancer and follow the course of the disease. However, miRNA analysis deserves further standardization before implementation into clinical trials or practice. Here, we performed international ring experiments to explore (pre)-analytical factors relevant to the outcome of miRNA blood tests in the context of the EU network CANCER-ID. METHODS:Cell-free (cfmiRNA) and extracellular vesicle-derived miRNA (EVmiRNA) were extracted using the miRNeasy Serum/Plasma Advanced, and the ExoRNeasy Maxi kit, respectively, in a plasma cohort of 27 NSCLC patients and 20 healthy individuals. Extracted miRNA was investigated using small RNA sequencing and hybridization platforms. Validation of the identified miRNA candidates was performed using quantitative PCR. RESULTS:We demonstrate the highest read counts in healthy individuals and NSCLC patients using QIAseq. Moreover, QIAseq showed 15.9% and 162.9% more cfmiRNA and EVmiRNA miRNA counts, respectively, in NSCLC patients compared to healthy control samples. However, a systematic comparison of selected miRNAs revealed little agreement between high-throughput platforms, thus some miRNAs are detected with one technology, but not with the other. Adding to this, 35% (9 of 26) of selected miRNAs in the cfmiRNA and 42% (11 of 26) in the EVmiRNA fraction were differentially expressed by at least one qPCR platform; about half of the miRNAs (54%) were concordant for both platforms. CONCLUSIONS:Changing of (pre)-analytical methods of miRNA analysis has a significant impact on blood test results and is therefore a major confounding factor. In addition, to confirm miRNA biomarker candidates screening studies should be followed by targeted validation using an independent platform or technology.

BACKGROUND: In human body fluids, microRNA (miRNA) can be found as circulating cell-free miRNA (cfmiRNA), as well as secreted into extracellular vesicles (EVmiRNA). miRNAs are being intensively evaluated as minimally invasive liquid biopsy biomarkers in patients with cancer. The growing interest in developing clinical assays for circulating miRNA necessitates careful consideration of confounding effects of preanalytical and analytical parameters. METHODS: By using reverse transcription quantitative real-time PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS), we compared extraction efficiencies of 5 different protocols for cfmiRNA and 2 protocols for EVmiRNA isolation in a multicentric manner. The efficiency of the different extraction methods was evaluated by measuring exogenously spiked cel-miR-39 and 6 targeted miRNAs in plasma from 20 healthy individuals. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the tested methods. Although column-based extraction methods were highly effective for the isolation of endogenous miRNA, phenol extraction combined with column-based miRNA purification and ultracentrifugation resulted in lower quality and quantity of isolated miRNA. Among all extraction methods, the ubiquitously expressed miR-16 was represented with high abundance when compared with other targeted miRNAs. In addition, the use of miR-16 as an endogenous control for normalization of quantification cycle values resulted in a decreased variability of column-based cfmiRNA extraction methods. Cluster analysis of normalized NGS counts clearly indicated a method-dependent bias. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of plasma miRNA extraction methods affects the selection of potential miRNA marker candidates and mechanistic interpretation of results, which should be done with caution, particularly across studies using different protocols.