Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 14, 2026

Preparation of Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell Pellets and Plasma from a Single Blood Draw at Clinical Trial Sites for Biomarker Analysis
Published on: March 20, 2021
Plasma cfDNA and peripheral blood gDNA provide complementary information for molecular monitoring in
Xiaotong Ma1, Can Yang1, Yusi Duan1
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Background:
Molecular monitoring of Philadelphia-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) relies on genomic DNA (gDNA) from peripheral blood (PB). As variant allele frequency (VAF) reduction correlates with clinical outcomes, optimizing monitoring strategies has become important. However, whether gDNA accurately reflects bone marrow (BM) clonal dynamics and whether cell-free DNA (cfDNA) provides complementary information remains undefined.
Methods:
We compared cfDNA and PB gDNA using methylation-based deconvolution, a cell line-derived xenograft (CDX) model, and paired clinical samples from two independent MPN cohorts (technical, n=7 with matched BM; validation, n=40 with longitudinal monitoring).
Results:
Methylation deconvolution showed an enrichment of BM-derived DNA in cfDNA (47.4% vs 18.9%, P = 0.035), providing exploratory evidence of its origin. The CDX model indicated that cfDNA serves as a superior surrogate for BM clonal burden, whereas gDNA underestimated it (P < 0.001). Clinically, mutation VAF showed high concordance (r=0.887, P < 0.001), yet cfDNA detected higher VAF (+22.6% mean advantage). Gene-specific analysis revealed CALR mutations had the 59.3% cfDNA advantage (P = 0.009). During treatment monitoring, cfDNA showed a trend toward higher sensitivity for resistance detection (25.6% vs. 17.9%), whereas gDNA appeared to be more sensitive for response confirmation (23.1% vs. 15.4%). Lymphocyte percentage emerged as a novel predictor of cfDNA advantage (r = 0.765, P = 0.045 in technical; r = 0.509, P < 0.001 in validation).
Conclusions:
While constrained by sample size and specific treatment contexts, our observations suggest that cfDNA and gDNA provide complementary value for MPN monitoring. Supported by preclinical models and technical analysis, cfDNA more effectively reflects BM clonal burden, while longitudinal observations suggest its capacity to track treatment-related clonal dynamics. In contrast, gDNA is more informative in confirming treatment response. The lymphocyte percentage predicts cfDNA utility, enabling rational test selection and a practical framework for optimizing MPN management.
More Related Videos
09:01Flow Cytometry to Estimate Leukemia Stem Cells in Primary Acute Myeloid Leukemia and in Patient-derived-xenografts, at Diagnosis and Follow Up
Published on: March 26, 2018
11:29HPLC-based Assay to Monitor Extracellular Nucleotide/Nucleoside Metabolism in Human Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Cells
Published on: July 20, 2016