Evaluating Cell-Free DNA Quantification and Integrity in Breast Cancer Using Fluorometric, Electrophoretic and PCR-Based Platforms

Abstract Background Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a promising biomarker for cancer detection and monitoring. However, different quantification and integrity assessment methods may yield variable results. This study aimed to compare cfDNA concentration and integrity between breast cancer (BC) patients and healthy controls using three complementary analytical techniques and to evaluate the concordance between these approaches. Methods Plasma cfDNA from BC patients and healthy controls was quantified using Qubit fluorometry, electrophoretic profiling by TapeStation (TS), and ALU-based quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays. cfDNA integrity was assessed using two indices: TS-derived DNA Integrity Index (DII) and ALU-qPCR–derived DII (ALU 247/115 ratio). Spearman correlation analyses were performed to compare results across methods. Results cfDNA concentration was significantly elevated in BC patients compared with controls across all three platforms, even after genomic DNA (gDNA) correction. Qubit, TS, and gDNA-corrected cfDNA concentrations showed strong correlations in both groups, indicating robust cross-method agreement. In contrast, cfDNA integrity showed method-dependent differences: ALU-qPCR–derived DII was significantly higher in tumor samples, whereas TS-derived DII did not differ between groups. Moreover, TS DII and ALU-qPCR DII were not correlated, suggesting that the two methods capture distinct aspects of cfDNA fragmentation. Conclusions cfDNA quantification is consistent across fluorometric, electrophoretic, and qPCR-based methods. However, cfDNA integrity assessments vary substantially by technique. ALU-qPCR appears more sensitive in distinguishing BC- associated fragmentation patterns. Combining cfDNA quantification with ALU-qPCR-based integrity analysis may enhance the diagnostic utility of cfDNA in BC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Methods and Protocols
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/mps9050124
Primary Topic
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating Cell-Free DNA Quantification and Integrity in Breast Cancer Using Fluorometric, Electrophoretic and PCR-Based Platforms

Belinda George, D S Jayakumari, C. E. Anupama, Gisha Rose Antony et al.
Methods and Protocols
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
article

Evaluating Cell-Free DNA Quantification and Integrity in Breast Cancer Using Fluorometric, Electrophoretic and PCR-Based Platforms

Belinda George, D S Jayakumari, C. E. Anupama, Gisha Rose Antony, Vidya P. Nimbalkar, Rakesh S. Ramesh, Jyothi D. N, Jyothi S Prabhu, Akshay Ajoy, Nihal M Ahmed, Sowmya Nagaraj, S Mahalakshmi, Ganapathi Bantwal
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a promising biomarker for cancer detection and monitoring. However, different quantification and integrity assessment methods may yield variable results. This study aimed to compare cfDNA concentration and integrity between breast cancer (BC) patients and healthy controls using three complementary analytical techniques and to evaluate the concordance between these approaches. Methods Plasma cfDNA from BC patients and healthy controls was quantified using Qubit fluorometry, electrophoretic profiling by TapeStation (TS), and ALU-based quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays. cfDNA integrity was assessed using two indices: TS-derived DNA Integrity Index (DII) and ALU-qPCR–derived DII (ALU 247/115 ratio). Spearman correlation analyses were performed to compare results across methods. Results cfDNA concentration was significantly elevated in BC patients compared with controls across all three platforms, even after genomic DNA (gDNA) correction. Qubit, TS, and gDNA-corrected cfDNA concentrations showed strong correlations in both groups, indicating robust cross-method agreement. In contrast, cfDNA integrity showed method-dependent differences: ALU-qPCR–derived DII was significantly higher in tumor samples, whereas TS-derived DII did not differ between groups. Moreover, TS DII and ALU-qPCR DII were not correlated, suggesting that the two methods capture distinct aspects of cfDNA fragmentation. Conclusions cfDNA quantification is consistent across fluorometric, electrophoretic, and qPCR-based methods. However, cfDNA integrity assessments vary substantially by technique. ALU-qPCR appears more sensitive in distinguishing BC- associated fragmentation patterns. Combining cfDNA quantification with ALU-qPCR-based integrity analysis may enhance the diagnostic utility of cfDNA in BC.

Methods and ProtocolsVol. 9(5)
St. John's University (US), St. John's School (US), St.John's Medical College Hospital (IN)
Indian Council of Medical Research
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 85%
Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.