Hubbry Logo
Circulating free DNACirculating free DNAMain
Open search
Circulating free DNA
Community hub
Circulating free DNA
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Circulating free DNA
Circulating free DNA
Circulating free DNA
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) (also known as cell-free DNA) are degraded DNA fragments released to body fluids such as blood plasma, urine, cerebrospinal fluid, etc. Typical sizes of cfDNA fragments reflect chromatosome particles (~165bp), as well as multiples of nucleosomes, which protect DNA from digestion by apoptotic nucleases.[1] The term cfDNA can be used to describe various forms of DNA freely circulating in body fluids, including circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), cell-free mitochondrial DNA (ccf mtDNA), cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) and donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA).[2]

Elevated levels of cfDNA are observed in cancer, especially in advanced disease.[3] There is evidence that cfDNA becomes increasingly frequent in circulation with the onset of age.[4] cfDNA has been shown to be a useful biomarker for a multitude of ailments other than cancer and fetal medicine. This includes but is not limited to trauma, sepsis, aseptic inflammation, myocardial infarction, stroke, transplantation, diabetes, and sickle cell disease.[5] cfDNA is mostly a double-stranded extracellular molecule of DNA, consisting of small fragments (50 to 200 bp) [6][7] and larger fragments (21 kb) [8] and has been recognized as an accurate marker for the diagnosis of prostate cancer and breast cancer.[9]

Recent studies have laid the foundation for inferring gene expression from cell-free DNA, with EPIC-seq emerging as a notable advancement.[10] This method has substantially raised the bar for the noninvasive inference of expression levels of individual genes, thereby augmenting the assay's applicability in disease characterization, histological classification, and monitoring treatment efficacy.[10][11][12]

Other publications confirm the origin of cfDNA from carcinomas and cfDNA occurs in patients with advanced cancer. Cell‐free DNA (cfDNA) is present in the circulating plasma and in other body fluids.[13]

The release of cfDNA into the bloodstream appears by different reasons, including apoptosis, necrosis and NETosis. Its rapidly increased accumulation in blood during tumor development is caused by an excessive DNA release by apoptotic cells and necrotic cells. Active secretion within exosomes has been discussed, but it is still unknown whether this is a relevant or relatively minor source of cfDNA.[14]

cfDNA circulates predominantly as nucleosomes, which are nuclear complexes of histones and DNA.[15] cfDNA can also be observed in shorter size ranges (e.g. 50bp) and associated with regulatory elements.[16] They are frequently nonspecifically elevated in cancer but may be more specific for monitoring cytotoxic cancer therapy, mainly for the early estimation of therapy efficacy.[17]

History

[edit]

Circulating nucleic acids were first discovered by Mandel and Metais in 1948.[18] It was later discovered that the level of cfDNA is significantly increased in the plasma of diseased patients. This discovery was first made in lupus patients[19] and later it was determined that the levels of cfDNA are elevated in over half of cancer patients.[20] Molecular analysis of cfDNA resulted in an important discovery that blood plasma DNA from cancer patients contains tumor-associated mutations and it can be used for cancer diagnostics and follow up.[21][22] The ability to extract circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from the human plasma has led to huge advancements in noninvasive cancer detection.[23] Most notably, it has led to what is now known as liquid biopsy. In short, liquid biopsy is using biomarkers and cancer cells in the blood as a means of diagnosing cancer type and stage.[24] This type of biopsy is noninvasive and allows for the routine clinical screening that is important in determining cancer relapse after initial treatment.[25]

Different origins of cfDNA

[edit]

The intracellular origin of cfDNA, e.g., either from nucleus or mitochondria, can also influence the inflammatory potential of cfDNA. mtDNA is a potent inflammatory trigger.[26] mtDNA, due to its prokaryotic origin, holds many features that are similar to bacterial DNA, including the presence of a relatively high content of unmethylated CpG motifs, which are rarely observed in nuclear DNA.[27] The unmethylated CpG motifs are of particular importance as TLR9, the only endolysosomal DNA-sensing receptor, has a unique specificity for unmethylated CpG DNA. mtDNA was shown to activate neutrophils through TLR9 engagement [28] unless coupled to carrier proteins, mtDNA, but not nuclear DNA, can be recognized as a danger-associated molecular pattern inducing pro-inflammation through TLR9.[29] Collins et al. reported that intra-articular injection of mtDNA induces arthritis in vivo, proposing a direct role of mtDNA extrusion in the disease pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune rheumatic diseases.[29][30]

MtDNA, in contrast to nuclear DNA, is characterized by elevated basal levels of 8-OHdG, a marker of oxidative damage. The high content of oxidative damage in mtDNA is attributed to the close proximity of mtDNA to Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and relatively inefficient DNA repair mechanisms that can lead to the accumulation of DNA lesions.[30][31]

They have shown that oxidative burst during NETosis can oxidize mtDNA and the released oxidized mtDNA by itself, or in complex with TFAM, can generate prominent induction of type I IFNs.[26] Oxidized mtDNA generated during programmed cell death is not limited to activate TLR9, but was shown to also engage the NLRP3 inflammasome, leading to the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL-1β, and IL-18.[30][32] MtDNA can also be recognized by cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS), a cytosolic dsDNA sensor to initiate a STING-IRF3-dependent pathway that in turn orchestrates the production of type I IFNs.[30][33]

Methods

[edit]

Collection and purification

[edit]

cfDNA purification is prone to contamination through genomic DNA due to ruptured blood cells during the purification process.[34] Because of this, different purification methods can lead to significantly different cfDNA extraction yields.[35][36] At the moment, typical purification methods involve collection of blood via venipuncture, centrifugation to pellet the cells, and extraction of cfDNA from the plasma. The specific method for extraction of cfDNA from the plasma depends on the protocol desired.[37]

Analysis of cfDNA

[edit]

Polymerase chain reaction

[edit]

In general, the detection of specific DNA sequences in cfDNA can be done by two means; sequence specific detection ([using [polymerase chain reaction]], commonly called PCR) and general genomic analysis of all cfDNA present in the blood (DNA sequencing).[38] The presence of cfDNA containing DNA from tumor cells was originally characterized using PCR amplification of mutated genes from extracted cfDNA.[21] PCR based analysis of cfDNA typically rely on the analytical nature of qPCR and digital PCR. Both of these techniques can be sensitive and cost-effective for detecting limited number of hotspots mutations. For this reason the PCR based method of detection is still very prominent tool in cfDNA detection. This method has the limitation of not being able to detect larger structural variant present in ctDNA and for this reason massively parallel next generation sequencing is also used to determine ctDNA content in cfDNA

Massively parallel sequencing

[edit]

Massively parallel sequencing (MPS) has allowed the deep sequencing of cfDNA. This deep sequencing is required to detect mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) present in low concentrations in the plasma. Two main sequencing techniques are typically used for targeted analysis of mutant cfDNA; PCR amplicon sequencing[39] and hybrid capture sequencing.[40] Other forms of genetic alterations can be analysed using ctDNA (e.g. somatic copy number alterations or genetic rearrangements). Here, methods based on untargeted sequencing, like WGS or low coverage WGS, are mainly used. Numerous epigenetic features of the tissue of origin may be extracted from cfDNA WGS, i.e. nucleosome spacing [41] and DNA methylation state[42][43].

cfDNA and illness

[edit]

Cancer

[edit]

The majority of cfDNA research is focused on DNA originating from cancer (ctDNA). In short, the DNA from cancer cells gets released by cell-death, secretion or other mechanisms still not known.[44] The fraction of cfDNA released by tumor cells in circulation is influenced by the size of the tumor as well as the tumor stage and type. Early stage cancers and brain tumor are among the most difficult to detect with liquid biopsy.[45][46][47]

Trauma

[edit]

Elevated cfDNA has been detected with acute blunt trauma[48] and burn victims.[49] In both of these cases cfDNA concentration in the plasma were correlated to the severity of the injury, as well as outcome of the patient.

Sepsis

[edit]

It has been shown that an increase cfDNA in the plasma of ICU patients is an indicator of the onset of sepsis.[50][51] Due to the severity of sepsis in ICU patients, further testing in order to determine the scope of cfDNA efficacy as a biomarker for septic risk is likely.[5]

Myocardial infarction

[edit]

Patients showing signs of myocardial infarction have been shown to have elevated cfDNA levels.[52] This elevation correlates to patient outcome in terms of additional cardiac issues and even mortality within two years.[53]

Transplant graft rejection

[edit]

Foreign cfDNA has been shown to be present in the plasma of solid organ transplant patients. This cfDNA is derived from the grafted organ and is termed dd-cfDNA (donor-derived cell-free DNA). Dd-cfDNA values spike initially after a transplant procedure (>5%) with values heavily depending on the transplanted organ and typically drop (<0.5%) within one week for most organs.[54] If the host body rejects the grafted organ the ddcfDNA concentration in the blood (plasma) will rise to a level greater than 5-fold higher than those without complications. This increase in ddcfDNA can be detected prior to any other clinical or biochemical signs of complication.[54] Besides dd-cfDNA in plasma, some research also focused on the excretion of ddcfDNA through urine. This is of special interest in kidney allografts transplantation. When dd-cfDNA is measured using targeted next-generation sequencing, assays were used with a population specific genome wide SNP panel.[55] Attaching barcodes to the ligated adapters prior to NGS during library preparation make absolute ddcfDNA quantification possible without the need for prior donor genotyping.[56] This has been shown to provide additional clinical benefits if the absolute number of cfDNA copies is considered combined together with the fraction of ddcfDNA over cfDNA from the recipient to determine whether the allograft is being rejected or not.[55]

Future directions

[edit]

cfDNA allows a rapid, easy, non-invasive and repetitive method of sampling. A combination of these biological features and technical feasibility of sampling, position cfDNA as a potential biomarker of enormous utility for example for autoimmune rheumatic diseases and tumors. It offers also a potential biomarker with its own advantages over invasive tissue biopsy as a quantitative measure for detection of transplant rejection as well as immunosuppression optimisation. However, this method lacks uniformity on the type of sample (plasma/serum/synovial fluid/urine), methods of sample collection/processing, free or cell-surface bound DNA, cfDNA extraction and cfDNA quantification, and also in the presentation and interpretation of quantitative cfDNA findings.[30]

cfDNA is quantified by fluorescence methods, such as PicoGreen staining and ultraviolet spectrometry, the more sensitive is quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR; SYBR Green or TaqMan) of repetitive elements or housekeeping genes, or deep sequencing methods. Circulating nucleosomes, the primary repeating unit of DNA organization in chromatin, are quantified by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA).[57]

Databases

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Circulating free DNA

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) refers to short fragments of double-stranded DNA that circulate freely in plasma, serum, and other bodily fluids outside of cells, primarily released from dying or dividing cells through mechanisms such as apoptosis, necrosis, and active secretion. These fragments, typically ranging from 50 to 200 base pairs in length, include both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and were first discovered in 1948 by Mandel and Métais in human blood plasma. In healthy individuals, cfDNA levels are low, but they increase significantly in conditions involving cell turnover, such as cancer, inflammation, or pregnancy. The biological origins of cfDNA are diverse, reflecting the health status of various tissues and organs. Most cfDNA arises from apoptotic and necrotic cells, where genomic DNA is fragmented and extruded into the before entering the circulation. In cancer patients, a subset known as (ctDNA) originates from tumor cells, carrying somatic mutations, copy number variations, and other tumor-specific alterations that can be detected non-invasively. Additionally, cfDNA can include (mtDNA) released during cellular stress, and in transplant recipients, it may derive from donor organs, serving as a marker of graft integrity. The of cfDNA in circulation is short, typically 1–2 hours, due to rapid clearance by the liver and kidneys, which underscores its dynamic nature as a real-time . Clinically, cfDNA has revolutionized liquid biopsy approaches, enabling minimally invasive diagnostics and monitoring across multiple fields. In , elevated cfDNA levels were first quantified in cancer patients in 1977 by Leon et al., who showed correlations with tumor burden and response to therapy. Today, ctDNA analysis facilitates early cancer detection, mutation profiling for targeted therapies, and assessment of post-treatment. Beyond cancer, cfDNA is integral to non-invasive (NIPT) for detecting fetal aneuploidies by analyzing placental-derived DNA in maternal blood. It also aids in monitoring organ through donor-specific cfDNA fractions and in evaluating infectious diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and autoimmune disorders by tracking tissue-specific origins. Ongoing advances in sequencing technologies continue to enhance the of cfDNA-based assays, broadening their utility in precision medicine.

Fundamentals

Definition

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) consists of short, double-stranded DNA fragments released into the bloodstream from dying cells through mechanisms such as , , or active . These acellular, extracellular nucleic acids are detectable in plasma, serum, and other body fluids, distinguishing them from intact cellular DNA. The typical length of cfDNA fragments ranges from 120 to 220 base pairs, reflecting the size of DNA wrapped around nucleosomes plus associated linker regions, with a prominent peak at approximately 167 base pairs. In individuals with cancer, tumor-derived cfDNA fragments tend to be shorter than those from healthy cells. cfDNA must be differentiated from (ctDNA), which represents the tumor-specific subset of cfDNA containing oncogenic mutations; while ctDNA is limited to cancer-derived material, cfDNA encompasses fragments from all cellular sources. In healthy individuals, cfDNA concentrations in plasma typically range from 1 to 15 ng/mL, with levels often elevated in disease conditions.

Biological Origins

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) primarily originates from the breakdown of cells across various tissues in the body, with and processes serving as the dominant sources. , a mechanism, releases DNA fragments through caspase-activated endonucleases that cleave at internucleosomal linker regions, while involves uncontrolled cell lysis leading to the spillage of genomic material. In healthy individuals, the majority of cfDNA in plasma derives from hematopoietic cells, including (approximately 55%) and erythrocyte progenitors (around 30%), reflecting the high turnover rate of these cell types. cfDNA enters the bloodstream through both passive and active mechanisms. Passive release occurs during , where apoptotic bodies or necrotic debris leak DNA into circulation following membrane rupture or incomplete . Active release includes processes such as NETosis, in which neutrophils extrude DNA as part of to combat pathogens, and by macrophages, particularly during erythroblast enucleation where DNase II digests nuclear material but some fragments escape into plasma. These mechanisms contribute variably, with passive serving as a dominant source of cfDNA in steady-state conditions, while active pathways become prominent during or . Tissue-specific origins of cfDNA arise in physiological and pathological contexts, such as fetal cells during , where placental trophoblasts contribute fetal-derived DNA to maternal plasma, or tumor cells in cancer, which shed DNA through rapid proliferation and death. In trauma or tissue injury, damaged organs release cfDNA from affected somatic cells, providing a snapshot of localized cellular stress. These origins highlight cfDNA's as a dynamic of systemic and localized cellular events. Once in circulation, cfDNA is rapidly cleared to maintain low steady-state levels, primarily through enzymatic degradation by plasma nucleases like DNase I and filtration by the liver, , and kidneys via . The of cfDNA typically ranges from 15 minutes to 2 hours, influenced by factors such as nuclease activity and renal function, which limits its persistence and detectability. Fragment profiles of cfDNA vary by origin and release mechanism, offering insights into the underlying . Apoptotic cfDNA predominantly consists of shorter mononucleosomal fragments (approximately 150-180 base pairs), corresponding to the size of DNA wrapped around a plus linker regions, whereas necrotic cfDNA yields longer, more heterogeneous fragments exceeding 1,000 base pairs due to random shearing. These differences arise from the orderly fragmentation in versus the chaotic lysis in .

History

Discovery

The presence of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in human blood was first reported in 1948 by Paul Mandel and Pierre Métais, who identified nucleic acids in the plasma of both healthy individuals and cancer patients through biochemical extraction and colorimetric assays. Their work marked the initial recognition of extracellular DNA outside of cells, though it received limited attention at the time due to the nascent state of techniques. Subsequent confirmation came in 1977, when Leon et al. utilized a to quantify free DNA in serum samples, revealing significantly elevated levels in patients with various cancers—particularly those with metastases—compared to healthy controls, with concentrations often exceeding 100 ng/mL in affected individuals. This study highlighted cfDNA's potential as a for . Building on this, a pivotal 1987 publication by Stroun et al. isolated DNA from the plasma of 10 out of 37 advanced cancer patients and demonstrated its neoplastic properties, including transforming activity in NIH 3T3 fibroblasts and resistance to temperature-induced denaturation, providing early evidence that cfDNA could originate from tumor cells. Early investigations into cfDNA encountered substantial hurdles, including persistent concerns that detected DNA might result from during collection or processing due to inadvertent cell lysis, as well as the inherent low sensitivity of assays like radioimmunoassays and , which struggled to distinguish cfDNA from background genomic DNA without amplification methods. These limitations delayed broader acceptance until improved purification techniques emerged. In the mid- to late 1990s, studies extended cfDNA observations to , with Lo et al.'s 1997 report detecting Y-chromosome sequences in the plasma of women carrying male fetuses using PCR, establishing fetal-derived cfDNA as a distinct source and introducing concepts for non-invasive prenatal diagnostics.

Key Milestones

The discovery of fetal DNA in maternal plasma in 1997 by Lo et al. marked a pivotal advancement in cfDNA research, demonstrating that could be detected noninvasively in maternal blood, which laid the foundation for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). This finding expanded the understanding of cfDNA as a beyond , enabling the development of diagnostic applications for fetal aneuploidies without invasive procedures. In the 2000s, the application of (PCR) techniques to detect somatic mutations in cfDNA from cancer patients provided early proofs-of-concept for liquid biopsies. A seminal study by Diehl et al. in 2008 introduced digital PCR to quantify (ctDNA), allowing sensitive monitoring of tumor dynamics in response to therapy and establishing ctDNA as a viable surrogate for tumor burden assessment. This methodological breakthrough facilitated the transition from qualitative detection to quantitative analysis, influencing subsequent designs for personalized cancer management. The 2010s witnessed the emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for comprehensive cfDNA profiling, enabling genome-wide analysis of mutations, copy number variations, and structural alterations at unprecedented depth. Commercial NIPT tests based on cfDNA, such as MaterniT21 launched in 2011, gained rapid adoption following large-scale validation studies, with professional societies like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists endorsing their use for high-risk pregnancies by 2012 and expanding recommendations by 2015. In , NGS-driven ctDNA assays supported liquid integration into routine care, exemplified by the 2016 FDA approval of the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2 for detecting EGFR in non-small cell via cfDNA. Entering the 2020s, advancements in epigenetic and fragmentomic features of cfDNA have enhanced tissue-of-origin inference, with patterns and fragment size distributions enabling precise localization of tumor signals in multi-analyte assays. Studies like Moss et al. (2018) demonstrated how plasma DNA profiles could distinguish cancer types with over 90% accuracy, paving the way for multi-cancer early detection (MCED) platforms. Recent 2024-2025 developments in MCED assays, such as Guardant Health's test, incorporate AI-driven analysis of cfDNA fragmentation to achieve sensitivities up to 74% for aggressive cancers while maintaining high specificity. Key publications have further solidified cfDNA's role; for instance, the 2017 review by Siravegna et al. in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology synthesized ctDNA dynamics, highlighting its utility in tracking clonal evolution and therapy resistance across solid tumors. In 2025, emerging studies on cfDNA for monitoring, such as those using ultrasensitive NGS to detect post-PD-1 blockade in , have shown ctDNA clearance correlating with durable responses.

Methods

Collection and Purification

The collection of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) primarily involves obtaining plasma from peripheral blood, as it is preferred over serum to minimize contamination with high-molecular-weight genomic DNA released from leukocytes during the clotting process. Studies have shown that cfDNA concentrations are 1.63- to 11.09-fold higher in serum compared to plasma due to this contamination, which can interfere with downstream analyses requiring high sensitivity, such as detection of low-abundance tumor-derived cfDNA. To further prevent cellular lysis and cfDNA release from blood cells, specialized collection tubes are recommended, including cell-stabilizing options like Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT tubes, which maintain cfDNA integrity for up to 14 days at room temperature, or PAXgene Blood ccfDNA Tubes, which stabilize cfDNA for similar durations. Standard EDTA tubes are suitable for shorter processing times of up to 6 hours but are less ideal for delayed handling. Following collection, plasma isolation requires a standardized protocol to remove cellular debris and reduce contamination risks. A double-spin approach is widely adopted: initial at 1,600 × g for 10 minutes at to separate plasma from cells, followed by a second spin at 16,000 × g for 10 minutes to pellet any remaining platelets and microparticles. This method ensures high-purity plasma, with the supernatant carefully aspirated to avoid the layer, which is rich in genomic DNA. Avoiding during and processing is critical, as it introduces additional genomic DNA and elevates cfDNA levels artifactually; protocols emphasize gentle handling and immediate processing where possible. The resulting plasma can be stored at -80°C for several years without significant degradation of cfDNA, though short-term storage at 4°C or is feasible for up to 24 hours in stabilizing tubes. Purification of cfDNA from plasma typically employs silica-based methods for efficient recovery of short fragments (often 150-200 ). Column-based extraction kits, such as the QIAamp Circulating Kit, are the most commonly used and provide reliable yields with minimal hands-on time, processing up to 5 mL of plasma. Magnetic bead-based approaches, like the QIAamp DSP Circulating NA Kit, offer compatibility and comparable , particularly for high-throughput settings, while avoiding phenol-chloroform extraction to reduce and chemical . Phenol-chloroform methods, though labor-intensive, can achieve higher yields in research contexts by partitioning cfDNA into the aqueous phase but are less favored due to handling hazards and potential for incomplete removal of inhibitors. Typical recovery from healthy individuals' plasma ranges from 5 to 50 ng/mL, varying with input volume and method, with column-based kits often outperforming beads in fragment integrity. Quality assessment of purified cfDNA focuses on yield, purity, and fragment size to ensure suitability for downstream applications. Fluorometric assays like PicoGreen provide sensitive quantification of double-stranded DNA, correlating well (r ≥ 0.72) with qPCR methods that target short amplicons (e.g., 70-100 bp) to evaluate cfDNA-specific recovery while excluding longer genomic contaminants. qPCR-based integrity indices, such as the ratio of long (e.g., 253 bp) to short (e.g., 115 bp) Alu repeats, help confirm the predominance of nucleosome-protected fragments, with values below 0.2 indicating high-quality, low-contamination cfDNA. These metrics guide optimization, as pre-analytical variables like processing delays can reduce yield by up to 50% through ongoing cell lysis.

PCR-Based Analysis

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods are essential for the targeted amplification and detection of specific cfDNA sequences, enabling sensitive analysis of low-abundance targets such as in (). These techniques are particularly suited to the fragmented nature of cfDNA, with average fragment sizes of approximately 160 base pairs, by employing primers that generate short amplicons to maximize amplification efficiency. Unlike broader genome-wide approaches like next-generation sequencing, PCR methods focus on predefined loci, providing rapid and cost-effective results for clinical applications such as monitoring in . Quantitative PCR (qPCR) serves as a foundational tool for assessing total cfDNA levels and integrity. It targets highly abundant repetitive elements, such as ALU sequences, which constitute about 10% of the and allow for reliable quantification without prior knowledge of specific mutations. For instance, ALU-based qPCR assays can detect as few as 7-10 cfDNA copies per milliliter of plasma, with amplicon sizes ranging from 76 to 201 base pairs to accommodate fragmentation; shorter amplicons (e.g., 76 bp) yield higher sensitivity for diagnostic purposes like detection, achieving area under the curve (AUC) values up to 0.968. These assays demonstrate high recovery rates (mean 101.26%) and specificity, making qPCR suitable for routine cfDNA quantification in plasma samples from cancer patients. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) advances qPCR by partitioning the sample into 20,000 or more nanoliter-sized droplets, each acting as an independent reaction for absolute quantification without standard curves. This enables precise measurement of rare variants in ctDNA, with sensitivity reaching 0.01% variant allele frequency (VAF). In non-small cell lung cancer, ddPCR targeting EGFR mutations (e.g., T790M) in ctDNA has been used to monitor treatment response to inhibitors like , showing 70% sensitivity and 93.9% specificity in clinical trials. The method's Poisson-based statistics ensure accurate VAF estimation even at low ctDNA fractions, supporting applications in detection. BEAMing (beads, emulsion, amplification, magnetics) integrates emulsion PCR with magnetic bead capture and for single-molecule resolution. Individual cfDNA templates are captured on biotinylated primers attached to superparamagnetic beads, emulsified in water-in-oil droplets (approximately 3 × 10^9 compartments), amplified via PCR, and then hybridized with fluorescent probes for and . This yields millions of analyzable beads, detecting mutations at frequencies as low as 0.1%, such as variants in ctDNA. Originally developed for rare , BEAMing has been adapted into platforms like OncoBEAM for high-throughput clinical testing. Primer design is critical for all PCR-based cfDNA assays due to fragmentation, with optimal amplicons under 100 base pairs to avoid yield drops (e.g., 37.5% efficiency at 100 bp versus higher for shorter lengths). positioning influences fragment ends, guiding primer placement to open regions for better recovery. PCR-based methods offer high analytical sensitivity for known and lower costs (e.g., ddPCR at 5-8.5 times less than sequencing per test), facilitating widespread in precision medicine. However, limitations include single- or low-plex capability, necessitating multiple assays for comprehensive profiling, and challenges from clonal hematopoiesis causing false positives.

Next-Generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) enables comprehensive profiling of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) by providing high-throughput analysis of genetic variants, including single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions, and copy number alterations, which is particularly valuable for detecting low-abundance (ctDNA) in plasma. Unlike PCR-based methods that target predefined loci, NGS approaches allow for broader genomic interrogation, either through targeted panels or unbiased genome-wide strategies, facilitating the identification of actionable mutations and monitoring of tumor evolution. These methods have become integral in precision oncology, with clinical assays demonstrating high sensitivity for variants at allele frequencies as low as 0.1%. Targeted NGS panels focus on sequencing a curated set of 100-500 genes commonly associated with cancer, optimizing for cost and depth in cfDNA samples where ctDNA fractions are low. For instance, Guardant360 CDx employs hybridization-based capture to analyze alterations in up to 74 genes, including single variants, insertions/deletions, and fusions, and is FDA-approved for guiding therapy in non-small cell and other tumors. Similarly, FoundationOne Liquid CDx sequences 324 genes in cfDNA, reporting short variants in 311 genes and rearrangements in 8, enabling companion diagnostic use for targeted therapies like EGFR inhibitors. To mitigate sequencing errors and PCR duplicates inherent in cfDNA analysis, these panels incorporate unique molecular identifiers (UMIs)—short random sequences attached during library preparation—that allow generation and error correction, improving detection limits to below 0.5% variant allele frequency (VAF). Whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing of cfDNA supports discovery across the entire or coding regions, uncovering novel alterations not covered by targeted panels, though it requires substantial computational resources due to the low ctDNA abundance. In whole-exome sequencing, libraries are prepared from 5-20 ng of cfDNA and sequenced to achieve mean target coverage of approximately 191×, enabling detection of somatic mutations with high concordance (88% for clonal variants) to matched tumor tissue when ctDNA fraction exceeds 5-10%. For low VAF detection (e.g., <1%), coverage must exceed 10× genome-wide, but practical limits often necessitate deeper sequencing (up to 500×) to distinguish true variants from background noise in samples with tumor fractions below 2%, as lower coverage reduces sensitivity for subclonal events. Whole-genome approaches similarly rely on elevated depth for variant calling, with tools like ichorCNA estimating tumor fraction from aligned reads to prioritize samples for follow-up analysis.30172-0/fulltext) Low-passage whole-genome sequencing (lpWGS) offers a cost-effective alternative for detecting copy number variations (CNVs) and aneuploidy in cfDNA, requiring only shallow coverage to infer genomic imbalances without targeted enrichment. Typically performed at 0.1-1× median depth using 2-5 ng input, lpWGS identifies broad and focal CNVs, such as chromosome 3q gains in lung cancer, with sensitivity for tumor fractions ≥10%, correlating well with tissue-based profiles in about 30% of advanced cases. This method uses segmentation algorithms like hidden Markov models to quantify tumor-derived signals, making it suitable for initial screening or monitoring therapy response where point mutations are not the primary focus. The NGS workflow for cfDNA begins with library preparation tailored to the short fragment lengths (typically 150-200 bp), involving end-repair, A-tailing, and ligation of platform-specific adapters to preserve native fragment sizes without additional fragmentation. Sequencing is conducted on platforms like Illumina NextSeq, with depths varying by application: 1000× or higher for targeted ctDNA panels to achieve ultrasensitive variant detection, 100-500× for exome/genome mutation calling, and 0.5× for lpWGS CNV analysis. Post-sequencing, bioinformatics pipelines align reads to the human reference genome (e.g., using BWA-MEM), apply UMI deduplication, and perform variant calling with tools like MuTect2 or VarScan, incorporating filters for sequencing artifacts and low VAF thresholds to yield high-confidence somatic calls. As of 2025, NGS for cfDNA has integrated long-read sequencing technologies, such as Oxford Nanopore, to better resolve structural variants that short-read methods often miss, including large insertions, deletions, and translocations in fragmented cfDNA. These approaches sequence full-length fragments (>300 ) from liquid biopsies in under 24 hours, detecting copy number aberrations and fragmentation patterns with sensitivity comparable to short-read NGS, while enabling portable, cost-effective analysis for structural variant discovery in .

Epigenetic and Fragmentomic Analysis

Epigenetic analysis of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) primarily involves profiling to identify tissue-specific patterns without relying on genetic variants. converts unmethylated cytosines to uracils while preserving methylated ones, enabling genome-wide assessment of status in cfDNA fragments. This approach has revealed that cfDNA patterns are highly tissue-specific, allowing inference of the originating tissue—for instance, liver-derived cfDNA exhibits distinct at CpG sites compared to brain-derived fragments—due to cell-type-specific epigenetic landscapes. Methylation-specific PCR complements by targeting predefined loci with primers that distinguish methylated from unmethylated alleles, offering higher sensitivity for low-abundance cfDNA in clinical samples. Fragmentomic analysis extends epigenetic insights by examining the structural features of cfDNA, such as fragment length distribution, end motifs, and positioning, which are derived from next-generation sequencing . cfDNA fragments typically peak around 167 base pairs, reflecting mononucleosome protection, but disease states alter this: shorter fragments under 150 are enriched in cancer-derived cfDNA due to aberrant activity. positioning signals, visible as protection footprints in sequencing reads, correlate with open regions and binding, providing indirect epigenetic information. End motifs, such as G-rich sequences at fragment termini, further differentiate healthy from pathological cfDNA, influenced by apoptotic and necrotic release mechanisms.00398-8) To assess cfDNA integrity and fragmentation patterns for disease detection, advanced computational methods like wavelet transforms decompose fragment size distributions into frequency components, highlighting subtle irregularities associated with pathology. Machine learning models integrate these features—such as size variance and motif frequencies—to score fragmentation anomalies, achieving high accuracy in distinguishing diseased states. Enrichment techniques enhance detection of methylated regions; for example, methylated DNA immunoprecipitation (MeDIP) uses anti-5-methylcytosine antibodies to selectively capture hypermethylated cfDNA prior to sequencing, reducing background noise from unmethylated fragments. Computational tools like cfSort employ deep learning on methylation atlases from diverse tissues to predict the proportional contribution of specific cell types to the cfDNA pool, enabling precise origin deconvolution. Recent advances in 2024–2025 have leveraged to combine fragmentomic signatures with epigenetic data for multi-cancer early detection (MCED). AI models trained on fragmentation patterns, including end coordinates and size biases, have demonstrated improved sensitivity for detecting multiple cancer types from low-input cfDNA, with fragmentation signatures mimicking footprints in aging or disease contexts. These approaches integrate wavelet-based feature extraction with neural networks to infer epigenetic states non-invasively, paving the way for broader liquid biopsy applications.

Clinical Applications

Oncology

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), a of cell-free DNA derived from tumor cells, serves as a of liquid biopsy in , enabling non-invasive assessment of cancer dynamics without the need for tissue sampling. In cancer management, ctDNA facilitates early detection, real-time monitoring of treatment efficacy, and identification of (MRD), offering insights into tumor evolution and therapeutic resistance. This approach has transformed precision by providing dynamic, patient-specific data that complements traditional and biopsies. For early cancer detection, multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests leveraging ctDNA have emerged as promising tools, particularly through analysis of patterns and DNA fragmentomics. Grail's Galleri test, for instance, screens for cancer signals associated with over 50 cancer types by detecting aberrant signatures in plasma cfDNA, achieving a specificity of approximately 99% in prospective studies. Granted FDA Device Designation in 2019, Galleri continues under this status as of 2025, with ongoing registrational trials like PATHFINDER 2 demonstrating a seven-fold increase in detection rates when added to standard screenings for , cervical, colorectal, and cancers. These MCED assays prioritize high-risk populations, such as adults over 50, to identify malignancies across diverse anatomical sites. In monitoring treatment response, ctDNA levels provide a sensitive indicator of therapeutic efficacy, with post-therapy clearance correlating strongly with improved outcomes. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dynamic ctDNA assessment during chemoradiotherapy or targeted therapies reveals tumor burden changes earlier than radiographic methods, where clearance of mutant alleles—such as EGFR—post-treatment predicts (PFS) with hazard ratios as low as 0.32 in meta-analyses. In one cohort of EGFR-mutant NSCLC patients on tyrosine kinase inhibitors, undetectable ctDNA at eight weeks post-initiation was associated with significantly longer PFS (median 19.9 months) compared to persistent detection. This kinetic profiling enables adaptive treatment strategies, reducing overtreatment in responders. Detection of MRD via ctDNA post-surgery is particularly impactful in , where residual tumor signals forecast relapse risk with high prognostic value. In stage II/III cases, postoperative ctDNA positivity identifies patients at elevated recurrence risk, with assays like Signatera achieving sensitivities exceeding 90% for detecting low-level disease and lead times of up to 16 months before . Studies report that ctDNA-MRD positive patients face a 79% recurrence rate within 27 months, versus 10% in negatives, supporting its use to stratify needs. This approach outperforms conventional in sensitivity for occult micrometastases. ctDNA also enables non-invasive for tumor profiling, crucial for identifying actionable alterations and resistance mechanisms. In , where tissue access is challenging, serial ctDNA analysis detects mutations—present in over 90% of cases—with concordance to tumor tissue of 48% to 87% in reported studies, allowing monitoring of clonal evolution and emergence of resistance variants during . For example, rising ctDNA levels post-treatment signal acquired resistance, guiding switches to alternative regimens like . This liquid biopsy utility extends to other solids, enhancing precision without repeated invasiveness. As of 2025, ctDNA-guided immunotherapy represents a key advancement, with trials demonstrating tailored PD-1/PD-L1 blockade based on MRD status. In mismatch repair-deficient cancers, including breast subtypes, postoperative ctDNA positivity directs adjuvant immunotherapy, leading to ctDNA clearance in approximately 85% of cases and 62% recurrence-free survival in treated cohorts. Concurrently, studies in breast cancer affirm ctDNA's superiority over imaging for surveillance; in early-stage disease, ctDNA detects molecular relapse a median of 8.7 months earlier than scans, with negative predictive value >95% for two-year freedom from progression. These findings underscore ctDNA's role in de-escalating unnecessary imaging while accelerating intervention.

Cardiovascular Diseases

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) has emerged as a valuable in cardiovascular diseases, particularly for detecting acute ischemic events through the release of cell-specific DNA fragments from damaged tissues. In (MI), cfDNA levels from cardiomyocytes elevate rapidly, often within 0–2 hours of symptom onset, allowing for earlier diagnosis compared to traditional markers like , which rise after 3–10 hours. This elevation can be 5–10 times higher in MI patients than in controls, peaking around day 1 and correlating with infarct size. In and , cfDNA levels correlate with plaque instability and rupture, reflecting endothelial and vascular damage. Elevated cfDNA, including neutrophil extracellular trap-derived fragments, contributes to in acute ischemic , with early studies showing increased plasma concentrations in affected patients. Fragment reveals endothelial cell origins through plaque-specific patterns, offering diagnostic potential for atherosclerosis progression. Neuron-derived cfDNA fragments have demonstrated high accuracy (up to 100%) in identifying patients via tissue-of-origin . For , cfDNA serves as an indicator of ongoing cardiomyocyte death, with plasma levels significantly higher in patients (approximately 300 ng/mL) compared to healthy individuals (<50 ng/mL). Mitochondrial cfDNA, in particular, links to myocyte and , providing insights into chronic tissue turnover. Integration with assays enhances monitoring, as unmethylated cardiac-specific cfDNA correlates with troponin elevations and apoptotic activity. Prognostically, higher post-MI cfDNA levels predict adverse cardiac remodeling and outcomes, such as reduced 90-day survival, with concentrations 5.93 times greater in ST-elevation MI cases. Recent studies associate cfDNA dynamics with risk, including ; for instance, lesions and elevated cfDNA (e.g., 0.39 ng/mL in patients vs. 0.13 ng/mL in controls) correlate with disease stage and recurrence, achieving an AUC of 83% for short- vs. long-term . Tissue-specific methylation enhances cfDNA specificity for cardiac origin, distinguishing MI from non-cardiac causes via heart-enriched patterns, such as those in cAMP signaling pathways or genes like FAM101A. Plasma analysis of these methylation signatures confirms cardiomyocyte-derived cfDNA in MI patients, improving diagnostic precision over total cfDNA quantification.

Infectious and Inflammatory Conditions

In , circulating free DNA (cfDNA) is released massively due to immune cell activation, extracellular trap formation, and widespread tissue damage, serving as a of disease severity. Elevated cfDNA levels, often exceeding 1 µg/mL, are associated with increased mortality risk, with meta-analyses of critically ill patients showing significantly higher concentrations in non-survivors compared to survivors (standardized mean difference 1.554, 95% CI 0.905-2.202). For instance, in a 2024 of 32 studies involving 2950 participants, cfDNA demonstrated 78% for prognostic assessment in . In trauma, cfDNA surges rapidly following as a result of cell and , reflecting the extent of tissue damage. Plasma and serum cfDNA levels correlate strongly with the Injury Severity Score (ISS), with higher concentrations in severe trauma patients (ISS ≥16) compared to those with moderate (p<0.001). This correlation supports cfDNA's utility in estimating trauma prognosis, achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 for predicting one-week mortality when combined with markers like . For infections, pathogen-derived cfDNA from or viruses can be detected noninvasively in plasma using next-generation sequencing (NGS), aiding in cases where traditional cultures fail. This approach identifies microbial cell-free DNA across a broad range of pathogens, offering high sensitivity for bloodstream and invasive infections. Examples include viral detection in immunocompromised patients, where NGS of cfDNA provides rapid identification without invasive biopsies. In inflammatory diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), cfDNA levels are elevated due to impaired clearance of apoptotic cells and increased nucleosomal release, contributing to disease pathogenesis. Nucleosome-bound cfDNA acts as an autoantigen, triggering immune responses and correlating with SLE activity and flare risk. Studies since the 1960s have confirmed cfDNA's role as a for monitoring progression and treatment efficacy in autoimmune conditions. Serial cfDNA monitoring in (ICU) settings provides prognostic utility by tracking dynamic changes in response to treatment, with declining levels indicating improved outcomes in and trauma. In a 2024 cohort of 150 patients, cfDNA trajectories over days 3 to 12 post-onset enhanced mortality prediction (AUC 0.86 when added to scores) and identified risks for -associated . This longitudinal approach outperforms single measurements for assessing therapeutic response and guiding ICU management.

Transplantation Medicine

In transplantation medicine, donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) serves as a key non-invasive for monitoring allograft health, particularly in detecting rejection and assessing engraftment. dd-cfDNA, which constitutes the fraction of circulating free DNA originating from the donor organ, is released into the recipient's bloodstream due to cellular injury or turnover in the graft. Levels of dd-cfDNA are typically low in stable transplants but elevate in response to immune-mediated damage. This approach enables serial without the risks associated with invasive biopsies, such as or . A dd-cfDNA fraction exceeding 1% of total cfDNA is indicative of active rejection in transplant recipients, providing high sensitivity and negative predictive value for ruling out allograft injury. This threshold is determined through methods that quantify donor-specific genetic variants, such as (SNP) mismatches between donor and recipient genomes, allowing precise attribution of cfDNA to the graft. In clinical practice, elevated dd-cfDNA prompts further evaluation and adjustment, correlating with histopathological findings of acute or antibody-mediated rejection. For heart and lung transplants, dd-cfDNA facilitates non-invasive post-transplant , with studies demonstrating its ability to detect acute rejection earlier than traditional endomyocardial or transbronchial biopsies, thereby reducing procedural complications while maintaining diagnostic accuracy. Monitoring declining dd-cfDNA levels post-transplant supports assessment of efficacy and operational tolerance, where sustained low fractions (<0.5%) signal successful graft accommodation without ongoing . In such cases, dd-cfDNA trends guide safe tapering of immunosuppressive regimens, minimizing long-term toxicity while preserving graft function. By 2025, integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) with dd-cfDNA analysis has advanced monitoring of mixed chimerism in transplants, enabling detection of donor cell engraftment dynamics and early risk through high-resolution variant calling. Additionally, epigenetic features like profiles of dd-cfDNA enhance specificity, distinguishing immune rejection from confounding factors such as by identifying tissue-specific signatures unique to the allograft.

Prenatal and Reproductive Medicine

Circulating (cffDNA), which constitutes approximately 5-20% of the total cell-free DNA in maternal plasma during pregnancy, originates primarily from apoptotic placental cells and enables non-invasive (NIPT) for detecting fetal aneuploidies such as 21 (). NIPT analyzes these short DNA fragments (<200 bp) through massively parallel sequencing or targeted approaches to assess chromosomal copy number variations in the fetal , offering a safer alternative to invasive procedures like . The test is typically performed after 10 weeks of , when the fetal fraction is sufficiently detectable. Clinical validation studies have demonstrated high accuracy for NIPT in screening for common trisomies, with sensitivity exceeding 99% and specificity over 99% for trisomy 21 in singleton pregnancies. Commercially launched in by Sequenom with the MaterniT21 test, NIPT has become a standard first-line screening option worldwide by 2025, integrated into guidelines for both high- and average-risk pregnancies due to its low false-positive rate compared to traditional serum-based screens. Positive results, however, require confirmatory diagnostic testing to rule out discrepancies. Beyond detection, NIPT applications in include fetal sex determination by identifying Y-chromosome sequences, RhD to guide anti-D immunoglobulin prophylaxis in RhD-negative pregnancies, and screening for select microdeletion syndromes such as 22q11.2 deletion (). These extensions leverage the same cfDNA platform, enhancing personalized obstetric management without additional maternal risk. Despite its advantages, NIPT is not diagnostic and can yield false positives, particularly from confined placental mosaicism, where chromosomal abnormalities are restricted to the rather than the , leading to misleading cfDNA signals. Such cases underscore the need for evaluation and invasive confirmation in discordant results. Emerging applications of cfDNA in extend to preconception and assisted reproductive technologies, including analysis of seminal plasma cfDNA to assess factors and non-invasive preimplantation using cfDNA from spent culture media for IVF selection. These approaches aim to improve outcomes by identifying genetic risks prior to implantation, though clinical validation remains ongoing.

Challenges and Limitations

Technical Challenges

One of the primary technical challenges in cfDNA analysis is the low abundance of target analytes, such as (ctDNA), which typically constitutes less than 1% of total cfDNA in early-stage disease or low tumor burden scenarios, necessitating ultrasensitive detection methods to minimize false negatives. This dilution by non-tumor cfDNA demands high-depth sequencing or enrichment strategies, yet even advanced assays struggle with reliable quantification at variant allele frequencies below 0.1%. Contamination risks further complicate cfDNA workflows, particularly from genomic DNA released by white blood cell during sample processing, which can introduce high-molecular-weight artifacts that mask true cfDNA signals. Mitigation strategies include rapid plasma isolation via double within two hours of collection and the use of specialized blood collection tubes that stabilize cells and inhibit , though inconsistencies across protocols persist. Recent efforts as of 2025 emphasize standardized preanalytical guidelines to minimize fragmentation biases during sample storage and , improving overall . Sequencing errors represent another hurdle, with background noise arising from PCR duplicates, amplification biases, and platform-specific artifacts that obscure low-frequency mutations in cfDNA. These issues are addressed through unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), which tag individual DNA molecules pre-amplification to enable duplicate removal and error correction via consensus sequencing, improving sensitivity for variants at <0.01% allele frequency. Standardization gaps exacerbate variability in cfDNA , as differences in collection kits, extraction methods, and materials lead to inconsistent yields and across laboratories. Efforts to address this include the development of standards, such as those from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for mimicking methylated cfDNA in , though comprehensive guidelines for validation and reporting remain limited. Finally, the high cost and limited throughput of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for cfDNA hinder widespread adoption, with per-sample expenses ranging from $250 to over $7,000 depending on depth and panel size, particularly burdensome in low-resource settings. While NGS offers scalability for large cohorts, its requirements for substantial input material and computational resources restrict accessibility compared to targeted assays like digital PCR.

Biological and Interpretive Variability

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) levels exhibit significant inter-individual variability influenced by demographic and physiological factors. Age is a key determinant, with cfDNA concentrations increasing progressively in healthy individuals due to heightened cellular turnover and in some studies. Sex differences also play a role, as males typically show higher baseline cfDNA levels than females, potentially linked to hormonal influences on packaging and release. contributes to variability, with studies indicating higher cfDNA in individuals of African descent compared to those of European ancestry, attributed to genetic differences in DNA clearance mechanisms and inflammatory profiles. Fitness levels further modulate cfDNA; for instance, acute exercise in athletes can elevate cfDNA by 5-10 fold immediately post-exertion, reflecting neutrophil extracellular trap formation and muscle damage, though levels normalize within hours. Disease-related confounders complicate cfDNA interpretation, as elevations are not specific to and can overlap with non-oncologic conditions. For example, from infections or autoimmune disorders can mimic cancer-associated cfDNA signals, with fragmentation patterns in inflammatory states showing shortened footprints similar to those in tumors. This overlap reduces specificity in multi-cancer early detection (MCED) assays, where inflammatory markers may trigger false alarms. Integrating multi-omics approaches, such as combining cfDNA with or transcriptomics, helps mitigate these confounders by providing contextual specificity, as demonstrated in studies achieving improved diagnostic accuracy through layered analysis. Temporal dynamics of cfDNA add another layer of interpretive challenge due to its rapid turnover. The half-life of cfDNA in circulation ranges from 15 minutes to 2 hours, necessitating frequent sampling for accurate monitoring in dynamic conditions like treatment response. In healthy individuals, cfDNA exhibits diurnal variations, peaking in the morning and declining by evening, with up to 25% day-to-day fluctuation influenced by sleep-wake cycles and minor stressors. These patterns underscore the importance of standardized timing in sample collection to avoid misinterpretation of baseline shifts as pathological changes. Ethical and interpretive issues arise from these variabilities, particularly in MCED applications where false positives can lead to and unnecessary interventions. MCED tests based on cfDNA have reported false-positive rates of 0.5-1%, potentially causing psychological distress and iatrogenic harm from follow-up biopsies, especially for indolent lesions that may never . Equity concerns exacerbate these risks, as access to cfDNA testing remains uneven across diverse populations; racial and ethnic minorities face barriers including higher costs, limited availability, and underrepresentation in validation cohorts, leading to biased performance in non-European groups. In 2025, emerging concerns highlight AI model biases in cfDNA fragmentomics , stemming from imbalances that overrepresent certain demographics. Models trained predominantly on Caucasian cohorts exhibit reduced sensitivity for fragment size and end-motif patterns in underrepresented ethnic groups, potentially amplifying interpretive errors in diverse settings. Addressing these requires diverse curation to ensure equitable diagnostic reliability.

Future Directions and Resources

Emerging Technologies

Emerging advancements in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) analysis are poised to overcome current limitations in sensitivity, speed, and integration, enabling more precise non-invasive diagnostics and therapies. Single-molecule imaging techniques, such as , facilitate real-time analysis of cfDNA with ultra-low input requirements, as they sequence native DNA molecules without prior amplification, making them ideal for detecting sparse tumor-derived fragments in biofluids like plasma or . This approach has demonstrated feasibility in profiling brain tumors by identifying genetic mutations like IDH1/2 and epigenetic changes, with ongoing bioinformatic refinements addressing error rates of 5-15% to enhance clinical reliability. Complementing this, CRISPR-based methods, including Cas12a-mediated assays, enable amplification-free detection of cfDNA at limits as low as 5.43 fM, integrated with like gold nanoparticles for signal amplification and real-time monitoring via microneedle patches. Multi-omics integration represents a key frontier, combining cfDNA analyses with and to provide holistic insights into disease states through liquid biopsies. For instance, integrating cfDNA and fragmentomics with proteomic profiles has improved outcome predictions in immunotherapy-treated cancers, such as pembrolizumab-responsive tumors, by revealing complementary patterns that enhance sensitivity for early detection and monitoring. Similarly, cfDNA epigenomic data fused with metabolomic signatures supports multi-cancer subtyping, offering a more comprehensive view of tumor heterogeneity and therapeutic resistance without invasive procedures. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are transforming cfDNA fragmentomics by developing predictive models for tissue-of-origin determination, crucial for cancers of unknown primary. Recent tools like FRAGMA, employing convolutional neural networks to analyze fragmentation around CpG sites, achieve 93% area under the curve (AUC) accuracy in inferring methylation status, which directly informs tissue deconvolution. Advanced models such as cfSort utilize deep neural networks on clustered methylation markers to outperform prior methods in tissue origin prediction, with applications in early esophageal cancer detection via multimodal fragmentation data. Point-of-care devices are advancing rapid cfDNA quantification, bridging the gap to bedside implementation. Portable digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) systems detect ctDNA mutations at frequencies below 0.1%, enabling clinic-based monitoring with minimal sample processing. Electrochemical biosensors, incorporating screen-printed electrodes and , offer ultrasensitive detection limits as low as 2.2 aM for cfDNA, supporting real-time, cost-effective assays in resource-limited settings. The therapeutic potential of cfDNA extends to targeting its pathological roles, particularly as a target in conditions like . Scavenging cfDNA with nucleic acid-binding nanoparticles, such as mesoporous silica nanoparticles conjugated with polyethyleneimine (MSN-PEI), has shown promise in reducing inflammation and improving survival rates by up to 40% in models by neutralizing Toll-like receptor 9-mediated storms. Emerging explorations also position cfDNA within gene editing frameworks, where screens of cfDNA release pathways highlight apoptosis-related genes as modulators, suggesting potential for cfDNA-informed delivery strategies in therapeutic editing.

Databases and Tools

Public databases play a crucial role in cfDNA research by providing aggregated datasets for profiling and tumor-derived analyses. A cell-type methylome atlas (published in 2023), based on deep whole-genome , serves as a comprehensive resource with profiles applicable to plasma cfDNA across diverse cohorts, enabling tissue-of-origin deconvolution and discovery. Similarly, TCGA-derived (ctDNA) datasets are accessible via cBioPortal, which integrates genomic alterations from for cfDNA validation studies, supporting (CNV) and mutation analyses in . Specialized repositories facilitate access to non-coding elements and raw sequencing data in cfDNA investigations. NONCODE, a dedicated database for non-coding RNAs (current version v6.0, released in 2021), includes annotations relevant to non-coding cfDNA fragments, aiding in the study of regulatory elements released into circulation from apoptotic cells. For raw sequencing data, the (GEO) and European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) host extensive cfDNA study datasets, such as whole-genome sequencing from liquid biopsies, allowing researchers to retrieve and reanalyze fragmentomic and epigenomic features. Analysis tools streamline cfDNA processing and feature extraction. ichorCNA is a widely adopted for detecting CNVs in low-coverage whole-genome sequencing of cfDNA, estimating tumor fraction with high sensitivity in plasma samples from cancer patients. , Illumina's array-based platform, supports bisulfite-converted cfDNA , targeting over 850,000 CpG sites for profiling in liquid biopsies. For fragmentomics, pipelines like FragmentX enable end-to-end analysis of cfDNA fragmentation patterns, including size distribution and motif enrichment, to infer positioning and disease states. Standards and consortia promote interoperability and sharing in cfDNA applications. The Blood Profiling Atlas in Cancer (BloodPAC) consortium maintains a commons for datasets, standardizing metadata and sharing multi-omics cfDNA profiles to accelerate validation in . The 2025 EU cfDNA harmonization initiative, under the European Liquid Biopsy Society, focuses on unifying protocols for ctDNA reporting and validation, aligning with IVDR requirements to enhance cross-border clinical adoption. Open-source tools enhance accessibility for cfDNA workflows. cfDNApipe provides an integrated for , alignment, and feature extraction from whole-genome or data, supporting differential and CNV detection in a user-friendly Python environment. These resources collectively lower , fostering reproducible research and clinical translation in cfDNA-based diagnostics.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X16300282
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6888694/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/cell-free-dna
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6606043/
  5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2021.639233/full
  6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/837366/
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01696-0
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12107418/
  9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/19570
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38947418/
  11. https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/14/4/498
  12. https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/life-in-the-lab/cfdna-vs-ctdna/
  13. https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-022-01710-w
  14. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006162
  15. https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-ctdna-vs-cfdna.html
  16. https://www.beckman.com/support/faq/product/amount-of-cfdna-present-in-1ml-normal-plasma
  17. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07466-6
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12413
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7662960/
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667394022000260
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18875018/
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3653190/
  23. https://aacrjournals.org/mcr/article/14/10/898/135577/Cell-free-DNA-cfDNA-Clinical-Significance-and
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9274585/
  25. https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2025/Guardant-Health-Presents-Data-Demonstrating-Strong-Performance-of-Shield-Multi-Cancer-Detection-Test-Across-10-Tumor-Types/default.aspx
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrclinonc.2017.32
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844017339129
  28. https://dctd.cancer.gov/data-tools-biospecimens/biospecimens-biobanks/resources/best-practices/bebp/bebp-cfdna.pdf
  29. https://www.streck.com/products/stabilization/cell-free-dna-bct/
  30. https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/discovery-and-translational-research/sample-collection-stabilization/dna/paxgene-blood-ccfdna-tube
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03508-4
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009898121001893
  33. https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-021-01182-7
  34. https://www.qiagen.com/us/products/discovery-and-translational-research/dna-rna-purification/dna-purification/cell-free-dna/qiaamp-circulating-nucleic-acid-kit
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-27216-5
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7039987/
  37. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1010428320916314
  38. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1385041/full
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4249756/
  40. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac202028g
  41. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-2482
  42. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1133470100
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89592-8
  44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41551-021-00837-3
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6422983/
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9336539/
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00965-y
  48. https://www.e-crt.org/journal/view.php?number=3469
  49. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf20/P200010S008C.pdf
  50. https://www.foundationmedicine.com/test/foundationone-liquid-cdx
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5340976/
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737219301720
  53. https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article/25/7/2254/82629/Low-pass-Whole-genome-Sequencing-of-Circulating
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30617129/
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11090203/
  56. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-019-6355-0
  57. https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/sequencing/next-generation-sequencing/ngs-library-preparation-illumina-systems/master-ngs-collibri-library-prep/whole-genome-sequencing-cfdna-ctdna.html
  58. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.16.638482v1
  59. https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.202217282
  60. https://www.activemotif.com/blog-sequencing-cfdna-liquid-biopsy
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666634021000313
  62. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305236120
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7765488/
  64. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw3616
  65. https://aacrjournals.org/cancerdiscovery/article/13/3/632/716743/Nucleosome-Patterns-in-Circulating-Tumor-DNA
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10543881/
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47196-6
  68. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2426890122
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12166640/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7225135/
  71. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03254-6
  72. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.4_suppl.302
  73. https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-announces-significant-progress-with-multi-cancer-early-detection-test-including-fda-breakthrough-device-designation/
  74. https://www.galleri.com/what-is-galleri/types-of-cancer-detected
  75. https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/news/grail-test-fda-breakthrough-status/
  76. https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-pathfinder-2-results-show-galleri-multi-cancer-early-detection-blood-test-increased-cancer-detection-more-than-seven-fold-when-added-to-uspstf-a-and-b-recommended-screenings/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9444942/
  78. https://academic.oup.com/oncolo/article/30/2/oyae344/8042136
  79. https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article-pdf/31/11/2162/3607946/ccr-24-3612.pdf
  80. https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-021-01089-z
  81. https://www.targetedonc.com/view/guardant-reveal-ctdna-test-shows-high-sensitivity-in-colorectal-cancer
  82. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/14/3/161
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12186373/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5947453/
  85. https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-019-0824-4
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S09237534199342528/fulltext
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5423145/
  88. https://www.mdpi.com/1718-7729/32/11/589
  89. https://www.aacr.org/about-the-aacr/newsroom/news-releases/adjuvant-pd-1-blockade-for-mismatch-repair-deficient-solid-cancers-directed-by-ctdna-status-delivers-clinical-benefit/
  90. https://resources.flatiron.com/real-world-evidence/the-future-of-ctdna-in-cancer-care-real-world-signals-real-clinical-impact
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12420329/
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772487525001229
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915024011559
  94. https://karger.com/crm/article/11/5-6/218/822489/The-Role-of-Cell-Free-Plasma-DNA-in-Patients-with
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235230422200229X
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405500X24008727
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35062960/
  98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39208340/
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36980458/
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30742071/
  101. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30017314/
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33672659/
  103. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38803503/
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8570240/
  105. https://journals.lww.com/transplantationdirect/fulltext/2021/03000/donor_derived_cell_free_dna__advancing_a_novel.1.aspx
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X2030015X
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10936987/
  108. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2113476118
  109. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pd.5952
  110. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pediatrics/articles/10.3389/fped.2023.1066178/full
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4498868/
  112. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020722-094144
  113. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12055489/
  114. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1407349
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3898859/
  116. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3897/6/2/15
  117. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pd.6421
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844023011301
  119. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tog.12850
  120. https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/40/Supplement_1/deaf097.327/8170729
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41044773/
  122. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0143400422000388
  123. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00876-y
  124. https://www.cap.org/member-resources/articles/the-liquid-biopsy
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6818589/
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009912013002798
  127. https://nonacus.com/why-cfdna-has-caused-a-revolution-in-genetic-diagnostics/
  128. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11048502/
  129. https://nonacus.com/blog-unique-molecular-identifiers-unmask-low-frequency-variants/
  130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379214197_Abstract_7024_Development_of_quality_control_methods_for_reliable_NGS_measurement_of_methylation_in_cfDNA
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109830152402357X
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950347724000550
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8577835/
  134. https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-01245-3
  135. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225306101_Circulating_Cell-Free_DNA_An_Up-Coming_Molecular_Marker_in_Exercise_Physiology
  136. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41206952/
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9938261/
  138. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47851-w
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6945267/
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11720216/
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11785667/
  142. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/evcna.2022.23
  143. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-025-00811-1
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11789496/
  145. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38866008/
  146. https://www.scientificarchives.com/article/nanopore-sequencing-of-cell-free-dna-an-emerging-liquid-biopsy-approach-for-brain-tumor-molecular-profiling
  147. https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-024-02222-5
  148. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(24)00466-X
  149. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12672-024-01365-7
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7259927/
  151. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-024-06129-1
  152. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05580-6
  153. https://www.cbioportal.org/
  154. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41523-025-00739-6
  155. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/49/D1/D165/5983627
  156. https://www.illumina.com/products/by-type/microarray-kits/infinium-methylation-epic.html
  157. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6896050/
  158. https://www.cell.com/cancer-cell/fulltext/S1535-6108%2825%2900398-8
  159. https://www.bloodpac.org/
  160. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/CCI.20.00179
  161. https://www.emqn.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/PIIS2950195425000177.pdf
  162. https://scientiasalut.gencat.cat/bitstream/handle/11351/13012/reporting-molecular-test-results-cell-free-dna-analyses-expert-consensus-recommendations-2023-european-liquid-biopsy-society-ctdna-workshop-2025.pdf?sequence=1
  163. https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/37/22/4251/6286958
  164. https://github.com/XWangLabTHU/cfDNApipe
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.