Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T08:12:51.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cell-free DNA: the role in pathophysiology and as a biomarker in kidney diseases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2018

Peter Celec*
Affiliation:
Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Institute of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
Barbora Vlková
Affiliation:
Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
Lucia Lauková
Affiliation:
Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
Janka Bábíčková
Affiliation:
Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Peter Boor
Affiliation:
Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Institute of Pathology & Department of Nephrology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: Peter Celec, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Molecular Biomedicine, Comenius University, Sasinkova 4, 811 08 Bratislava, Slovakia. E-mail: petercelec@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) is present in various body fluids and originates mostly from blood cells. In specific conditions, circulating cfDNA might be derived from tumours, donor organs after transplantation or from the foetus during pregnancy. The analysis of cfDNA is mainly used for genetic analyses of the source tissue —tumour, foetus or for the early detection of graft rejection. It might serve also as a nonspecific biomarker of tissue damage in critical care medicine. In kidney diseases, cfDNA increases during haemodialysis and indicates cell damage. In patients with renal cell carcinoma, cfDNA in plasma and its integrity is studied for monitoring of tumour growth, the effects of chemotherapy and for prognosis. Urinary cfDNA is highly fragmented, but the technical hurdles can now be overcome and urinary cfDNA is being evaluated as a potential biomarker of renal injury and urinary tract tumours. Beyond its diagnostic application, cfDNA might also be involved in the pathogenesis of diseases affecting the kidneys as shown for systemic lupus, sepsis and some pregnancy-related pathologies. Recent data suggest that increased cfDNA is associated with acute kidney injury. In this review, we discuss the biological characteristics, sources of cfDNA, its potential use as a biomarker as well as its role in the pathogenesis of renal and urinary diseases.

Type
Review
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Introduction

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the human serum had been described before the structure of DNA was known (Ref. Reference Mandel and Metais1). It was thought that the cfDNA in serum is only the result of cell damage during coagulation of blood (Ref. Reference Steinman2). CfDNA was almost undetectable in plasma of healthy volunteers in the era before polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Presence of cfDNA was seen as a pathological sign. The immunoelectrophoresis assays used to detect DNA at that time had shown that cfDNA appeared in the circulation during haemodialysis, likely because of the damage of leucocytes (Refs Reference Steinman and Ackad3, Reference Fournie4). It took decades until scientists recognised that cfDNA might be of interest for diagnosis, monitoring, and even understanding the pathogenesis of various diseases. Later studies showed that cfDNA is also present in plasma under physiological conditions in healthy volunteers (Ref. Reference Zhong5). Because the clearance of cfDNA is very fast (between 4 and 30 min) (Refs Reference Rumore6, Reference Garcia Moreira7), it might become a useful biomarker for monitoring of rapid changes in a patient (Ref. Reference Avriel8). This is further supported by the fact that a simple fluorometric assay or real-time PCR is sufficient for its quantification. Moreover, rather than pure quantification, detection of different targets in DNA enables detection of cfDNA from different sources. For example, cfDNA containing regions specific for Y-chromosomes proved useful as a biomarker of graft rejection in female recipients of male donor organs (Ref. Reference Lui9). Other strategies included the detection of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping of cfDNA from donor and recipient (Ref. Reference Snyder10), or detection of DNA mutations specific for tumours (Ref. Reference Fleischhacker and Schmidt11). Using DNA sequencing, especially massive parallel sequencing, the sensitivity and specificity have improved (Ref. Reference De Vlaminck12). Even though costs for such high-throughput analyses decrease, fast, simple and low-cost analyses are most promising strategies for clinical practice and include methods such as targeted end-point PCR combined with quantitative PCR or molecular bar-codes.

This review describes the basics of cfDNA biology, the use of cfDNA as a biomarker for renal tissue damage and summarises the data on the role of cfDNA in kidney disease pathogenesis.

Biological characteristics of cfDNA

The origin of cfDNA

CfDNA is released from cells by apoptosis, necrosis and netosis – production of extracellular traps by neutrophils, which actively release DNA-histones complexes to kill pathogens (Ref. Reference Allam13) (Fig. 1). These mechanisms are associated with various diseases, but occur also under physiological conditions (Ref. Reference Breitbach, Tug and Simon14). The principal cells that release cfDNA are blood cells. This has been demonstrated in patients after sex-mismatched bone marrow transplantation. In women, nearly 60% of plasma cfDNA originated from male donor-derived haematopoietic cells. On the other hand, a multivariate analysis in patients on haemodialysis showed that an important determinant of cfDNA is the blood pressure suggesting that vascular injury might contribute to the pool of plasma DNA in some patients (Ref. Reference Jeong da15).

Figure 1. Sources of cfDNA in blood and urine. Plasma cfDNA is mostly derived from blood cells. An alternative source are tissue cells, fat cells, especially in obese patients, tumour cells in the patients with solid tumours and placental cells in pregnant women. The main mechanisms involved in the release of cfDNA include apoptosis, necrosis and netosis. Urine contains cfDNA derived from plasma.

After transplantation of solid organs such as liver, heart and kidney, the cfDNA from the donor accounts only for a very small (<1%) or an even undetectable portion of the whole plasma cfDNA, confirming its main origin from haematopoietic cells (Ref. Reference Lui16). Using specific extraction kits for isolation and detection of cfDNA and massive parallel sequencing, even such small amounts of cfDNA can be sufficient for the diagnostic purposes, for example, as shown for acute rejection after heart (Ref. Reference De Vlaminck12) and kidney transplantation (Ref. Reference Beck17). In pregnant women foetal cfDNA appears in maternal plasma (Ref. Reference Lo and Chiu18). Obesity is another factor contributing to cfDNA quantity. Continuous turnover of fat cells leads to release of cfDNA and a twofold higher concentration than in lean subjects (Ref. Reference Haghiac19).

The size of cfDNA

Fragments of cfDNA are 185–200 bases long in plasma of healthy volunteers, while the length of cfDNA fragments released from malignant cells shows higher variability (Refs Reference Chan20, Reference Schwarzenbach, Hoon and Pantel21). It is present in form of nucleoprotein complexes. The size of the fragments of cfDNA is important. When large amounts of small fragments (160–200 bases) of single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) were injected into mice, despite low blood levels, the DNA was found in the glomeruli even after 24 h (Ref. Reference Carlson22). The opposite results, that is, high blood levels but no presence in glomeruli, were observed for larger fragments of 2–6 kb (Ref. Reference Carlson22). These results indicate that the plasma cfDNA might be trapped in the glomeruli based on its size by a yet unknown mechanism. However, in the mentioned experiment ssDNA was used which is different from standard human double-stranded DNA. In addition, naked DNA was applied making it difficult to interpret the information for physiological and pathophysiological conditions where DNA is mostly bound to proteins. In pregnant women, maternal and fetal cfDNA are circulating in plasma. Both are fragmented, but fetal DNA is overrepresented in the slightly lower fragment sizes, which can be helpful for amplification of fetal DNA and enable further analyses (Ref. Reference Li23). Similarly, on lupus fragments of cfDNA in plasma are much shorter than in healthy probands (Ref. Reference Chan24).

Haemodialysis was proposed as a model to study the biology of cfDNA (Ref. Reference Rumore6). During haemodialysis, cfDNA is released into the circulation and resembles the cfDNA found in other diseases. Interestingly, after cessation of haemodialysis, the half-life of the produced cfDNA is only 4 min suggesting a high turnover rate (Ref. Reference Rumore6). Deoxyribonuclease activity is inversely proportional to the concentration of cfDNA. Low deoxyribonuclease activity in plasma could be the cause of increased concentration of cfDNA in some diseases. In cancer patients, low deoxyribonuclease activity might contribute to increase in cfDNA fragments size (Refs Reference Cherepanova25, Reference Stephan26). The highest deoxyribonuclease activity among all tested tissues and body fluids was found in urine. The enzyme activity in the kidney is higher than in most analysed organs (Ref. Reference Nadano, Yasuda and Kishi27). This could partially explain the very low concentration and high fragmentation of cfDNA in the urine. The physiological or pathological role of deoxyribonuclease activity in the kidney is, however, not clear.

Clearance of cfDNA

How cfDNA is cleared from plasma is unknown. Liver was shown to play an important role in the trapping and clearance of DNA, chromatin or mononucleosomes injected into mice (Refs Reference Gauthier, Tyler and Mannik28, Reference Emlen and Mannik29, Reference Du Clos30). Plasma nucleases were found to only partially contribute to the degradation of plasma cfDNA in humans (clearance of fetal cfDNA in maternal plasma) (Ref. Reference Lo31) or injected DNA in mice (Ref. Reference Chused, Steinberg and Talal32). This was further supported by a genome-wide association study, where the concentration of cfDNA was not associated with polymorphisms of the deoxyribonuclease gene, but with polymorphisms of genes in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1 family, especially UGT1A1 (Ref. Reference Jylhava33). The enzyme encoded by the UGT1A1 locus is important for glucuronidation – a major pathway of detoxification of xenobiotics, but also a number of endogenous substances (Ref. Reference Williams34). The findings of this association study require confirmation and yet lack mechanistic explanation, but point to a likely involvement of the liver and the reticuloendothelial system in cfDNA clearance.

Patients with chronic renal failure do not have a higher cfDNA concentration in plasma despite the relatively low molecular weight of cfDNA (Ref. Reference Korabecna35). This indicates that kidneys might not be important for cfDNA clearance, potentially because of the negative charge of DNA. Also in animal experiments, the DNA uptake in kidneys was minimal (Ref. Reference Gauthier, Tyler and Mannik28). However, urine contains plasma-derived cfDNA. Kinetics of fetal cfDNA in the maternal circulation and in urine was assessed in women after delivery (Ref. Reference Yu36). While in the first hours after birth the clearance of fetal DNA was rapid, during the next hours it slowed down. After 2 days, fetal cfDNA was not detectable in maternal blood anymore. This study suggests that although kidney might be involved in clearance of cfDNA, this seems to be only a minor effect compared with yet unknown extrarenal clearance mechanisms. Whether this is also true for patients suffering from acute or chronic renal failure is unknown.

Sources of cfDNA and cfDNA as a biomarker

Tumours as a source of cfDNA

The concentration of cfDNA in plasma is increased in cancer patients and might serve as a potential tumour marker (Ref. Reference Anker37). One reason might be the reduced deoxyribonuclease activity in plasma of cancer patients (Ref. Reference Tamkovich38). Another, more likely reason, is that a part of the cfDNA in plasma is derived from tumour tissue cells undergoing apoptosis or necrosis (Ref. Reference Papadopoulou39) (Fig. 1). Cancer induces netosis and the produced extracellular traps lead to damage of the endothelium and the supplied organs (Ref. Reference Cedervall40). Other studies have brought results by showing that the interindividual variability in plasma cfDNA quantity and integrity is much higher than the difference between healthy controls and prostate cancer patients (Ref. Reference Boddy41). Higher cfDNA integrity in plasma was found in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma suggesting that the association might be tumour type-dependent (Ref. Reference Chen42). It might also be influenced by the analysis used. When ALU gene was used for the analysis of DNA integrity it was able to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostate hyperplasia (Ref. Reference Feng43). Tumour cfDNA can be detected in the urine and it does not have to be derived from tumours of the urinary tract (as will be discussed later). Even in patients with colorectal carcinoma, the typical K-ras mutations can be detected in cfDNA isolated from urine (Ref. Reference Su44). At least in some study, the mutations in cfDNA were detected with much better sensitivity in urine compared with plasma or serum (95% versus 40% versus 35%). Sequence analysis and epigenetic analysis, but not pure quantification of cfDNA, will more likely be of use for cancer diagnosis and monitoring as shown in several important studies in the last years (Refs Reference Chan45, Reference Chan46, Reference Thierry47). CfDNA analysis from plasma or urine has proven to be a suitable alternative to tissue analysis for testing BRAF mutations prior to targeted therapy. The tested patient population was small, but the results were consistent with DNA analysis from the tumour tissue at 83% (Ref. Reference Janku48). In recent studies, similar results were found in a much larger set of gastric cancer patients where the utility of urine and plasma samples for screening and monitoring of gene alterations was tested. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations were correctly determined by urinary and plasma cfDNA analysis in 92 and 99%, respectively (Ref. Reference Shi49). The ability to track EGFR mutations in the urine was also tested for lung cancer patients showing that urinary cfDNA is comparably informative to plasma cfDNA and tumour tissue analysis, while it is clear that urine is much easier to obtain and so, a very valuable source of tumour DNA applicable for clinical monitoring of the disease progress and treatment effects (Ref. Reference Chen50). CfDNA measured in plasma of patients with renal cell carcinoma was on average eightfold higher than in healthy controls. It decreased after nephrectomy and represented an independent prognostic factor, as it was associated with the risk of tumour reoccurrence (Refs Reference Perego51, Reference de Martino52, Reference Wan53). Analysis of microsatellite loss of heterozygosity detected in plasma cfDNA could predict the prognosis of the patients. CfDNA in patients with renal cell carcinoma had a much higher integrity of cfDNA compared with healthy controls. When longer target sequences (400 bp and more) were amplified by PCR, only cfDNA from patients was positive suggesting that the cfDNA derived from tumour cells is less fragmented (Ref. Reference Gang54). The reason might be that in contrast to other cfDNA, tumour-derived cfDNA likely originates from necrotic and not apoptotic cells (Refs Reference Hauser55, Reference Shaked56). However, a recent study focusing on the abundance of short and long fragments in patients with renal cell carcinoma found the complete opposite result – longer fragments were less abundant in patients in comparison to controls (Ref. Reference Lu57). These inconsistencies clearly require more research.

CfDNA can be used to study the methylation status of various tumour-related genes. In most of the patients with renal cell carcinoma, hypermethylated genes were found in the cfDNA (Refs Reference de Martino52, Reference Hauser58). The response of renal cell carcinoma to therapy can also be monitored by analysis of cfDNA, with high concentrations being associated with worse outcome (Ref. Reference Feng59). Circulating mitochondrial cfDNA was found to be elevated in patients with renal cell carcinoma, prostate and bladder cancer. In the latter two also the integrity of mitochondrial DNA was higher indicating that mitochondrial cfDNA might be a marker of tumours in the urinary tract (Ref. Reference Ellinger60) (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Kidney injury and cfDNA. CfDNA from tumours can be detected in the plasma and urine of patients with renal cell carcinoma. During the kidney injury, a larger amount of mitochondrial cfDNA and fragmented cfDNA is present in the urine. The plasma cfDNA and transrenal urinary cfDNA (i.e. plasma-derived), can be analysed using real-time PCR and sequencing for screening, diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression.

Analysis of the urinary DNA and its methylation status can reveal information about the malignant processes in the kidney. Promoter hypermethylation of several tumour suppressor genes was found to be similar in serum, urine and the tumour in patients with renal cancer (Refs Reference Hoque61, Reference Urakami62, Reference Hoque63). In patients with bladder cancer, microsatellite analysis (serum and urinary cfDNA) and PCR detecting of specific mutations (urinary cfDNA) revealed associations of DNA alternations with the disease (Refs Reference von Knobloch64, Reference Szarvas65, Reference Little66). Even a simple quantification of urinary cfDNA could help to screen patients with bladder cancer. In patients with bladder cancer urinary cfDNA is higher than in healthy controls (on average nearly threefold using Picogreen detection, and 14-fold higher using real-time PCR targeting a larger DNA fragment) (Ref. Reference Chang67). A follow-up study using other methods of urinary cfDNA quantification (spectrophotometry, fluorometry and real-time PCR) failed to confirm the results in another cohort of bladder cancer patients (Ref. Reference Zancan68). Similarly to circulating cfDNA, longer fragments and, thus, the higher integrity of urinary cfDNA was associated with bladder and prostate cancer (Refs Reference Casadio69, Reference Casadio70). In contrast, lower integrity index of urinary cell-free RNA was found in patients with renal cell carcinoma (Ref. Reference Zhao71). It was thought that changes in urinary DNA integrity could also be used as an early noninvasive diagnostic marker for prostate cancer. However, both sensitivity and specificity of integrity analysis have been shown to be lower than for prostate-specific antigen levels measurement (Ref. Reference Salvi72).

Transplants as a source of cfDNA

Donor DNA in plasma of transplant recipients was found by detecting the Y chromosome in plasma of women receiving the kidney or liver from male donor (Ref. Reference Lo73) and the presence of donor DNA in body fluids of the recipient was confirmed in a later study (Ref. Reference Zhong74). The detection of donor DNA can be based on Y chromosome DNA quantification, HLA differences, but also on insertion-deletion polymorphisms that are easy to detect using real-time PCR (Ref. Reference Adamek75). Elevation of transplant-derived DNA sequences in urine was associated with graft rejection in rats (Ref. Reference Martins76). Donor DNA was found in the plasma of the recipient after kidney transplantation and was higher in HLA mismatched donor–recipient pairs without immunosuppressive treatment. In a clinical study monitoring 100 patients during three months after transplantation, total cfDNA and not donor DNA or urinary DNA could be used for the detection of acute graft rejection episodes (Refs Reference Garcia Moreira77, Reference Sigdel and Sarwal78), which might have been because of the low number of patients with sex-mismatched transplants included in the study. CfDNA was analysed in plasma and urine samples using the digital PCR method to monitor organ rejection after kidney transplantation. Donor-derived cfDNA could only be detectable in urine samples, but unlike serum creatinine analysis, cfDNA analysis could not monitor or predict clinical development after kidney transplantation (Ref. Reference Lee79). Missing correlation between the donor-kidney contribution to the cfDNA in urine and serum creatinine values in stable patients was found also using SNP polymorphisms analysis (Ref. Reference Cheng80). Recently, the diagnostic usability of circulating cfDNA analysis was shown for the monitoring of the transplanted kidney. The status of the donor kidney is usually assessed using histological analysis of biopsy specimens. Renal biopsy cannot be done as often as blood sampling. In this study, the donor-derived cfDNA fraction of 1% from total cfDNA was determined as a threshold of organ damage meaning that donor-derived cfDNA above 1% shows very likely a rejection of the kidney (Ref. Reference Bloom81). As late detection of graft rejection is a major clinical problem, the analysis of cfDNA could help to solve this issue, thus warranting further research in this area. Especially, as a dynamic analysis of donor DNA found that it gets higher in plasma of the recipient sooner than other biochemical parameters (Ref. Reference Beck17) and much sooner than any histological markers can be found (Ref. Reference Gielis82). The early diagnosis of graft rejection achievable with cfDNA analysis enables early and, thus, more effective interventions that improve the prognosis of patients (Ref. Reference Oellerich83).

Tissue damage as a source of cfDNA

CfDNA in plasma is elevated in a number of pathologies associated with tissue damage, necrosis or apoptosis. Mere quantification of plasma cfDNA is a very nonspecific marker, yet in some pathologies the concentrations of cfDNA are extremely high. Concentrations of cfDNA in patients with myocardial infarction increase by more than 50% and correlate with prognosis (Refs Reference Antonatos84, Reference Destouni85). This has been confirmed later in a similar cohort using a quick fluorometric assay to quantify cfDNA, in which the cfDNA correlated with other known myocardial damage markers (Ref. Reference Shimony86) and was associated with patient outcome (Refs Reference Huang87, Reference Gornik88, Reference Zaravinos89). Similarly, in an animal model of stroke, cfDNA was higher after 24 h and the concentration was associated with the infarct volume (Ref. Reference Boyko90). In both rats and patients, cfDNA increases after traumatic brain injury and the subsequent rapid decrease is associated with a better survival (Refs Reference Macher91, Reference Ohayon92). Similar results were seen in patients with other types of trauma (Ref. Reference Ren93). CfDNA is also higher in patients with burns and correlates with the severity of the tissue damage and prognosis (Refs Reference Chiu94, Reference Shoham, Krieger and Perry95). In general, no matter which organ is affected, the amount of cfDNA in plasma seems to correlate with the volume of damaged tissue and in some cases with the prognosis.

CfDNA is associated with inflammatory markers in nonagenarians (Ref. Reference Jylhava96). The increase in the quantity of cfDNA in plasma is not restricted to local injuries, but has been studied also in systemic diseases. Plasma cfDNA is elevated fourfold in rheumatoid arthritis (Ref. Reference Zhong97) and correlates with the apnoea–hypopnoea index in patients suffering from sleep apnoea syndrome (Ref. Reference Shin98). Even more, it decreases when sleep apnoea is treated using continuous positive airway pressure along with markers of inflammation and oxidative stress (Ref. Reference Ye99). CfDNA is higher in diabetic patients with and without microvascular complications in comparison to controls (Ref. Reference El Tarhouny100) and in various acute disorders such as sepsis and respiratory failure (Refs Reference Arnalich, Lopez-Collazo and Montiel101, Reference Okkonen102). Unsurprisingly, a recent study showed that cfDNA and nucleosomes are higher also in patients with haemolytic uremic syndrome very likely because of the activation of neutrophils (Ref. Reference Ramos103). In ANCA-associated vasculitis the situation is not that clear. While some studies have shown higher cfDNA (Refs Reference Yoshida104, Reference Nakazawa105), in other the disease was not associated with higher cfDNA, nucleosomes or neutrophil extracellular traps (Ref. Reference Wang106). In summary, cfDNA is elevated in various diseases and its mere quantification is a very unspecific, but in some instances very sensitive biomarker. Owing to its high turnover and rapid clearance (Ref. Reference Lo31), it is suitable for monitoring dynamics of tissue damage and/or recovery. Before monitoring of cfDNA will be applicable for clinical practice, much more has to be learned about the metabolism of cfDNA.

Inflammation and cfDNA

PCR analysis using primers designed for the human genome does not allow detecting sequences from other organisms. In 21% of patients on haemodialysis, bacterial cfDNA was found in the blood despite negative cultures (Ref. Reference Bossola107). The presence of bacterial cfDNA in plasma is associated with slightly higher concentrations of interleukin 6 and C-reactive protein, similarly to patients with peritoneal dialysis (Ref. Reference Kwan108). The low-grade inflammation is very likely mediated by Toll-like receptor 9 that recognises CpG islands in the bacterial DNA (Ref. Reference Hemmi109). Other DNA sensors such as the stimulator of interferon genes (STING) might also be involved (Ref. Reference Lood110). Mitochondrial DNA resembles bacterial DNA and in some pathologies it was found to be elevated in plasma (Ref. Reference Zachariah111). This is likely to be because of tissue damage that might lead to activation of the immune system and potentially to sepsis-like syndrome (Ref. Reference Zhang112). Elevated mitochondrial cfDNA is associated with high mortality of patients in the intensive care unit (Ref. Reference Nakahira113). Whether these associations are causal remains to be elucidated. At least in lupus it was recently shown that mitochondrial DNA induced immune system activation, especially, when it was oxidised (Ref. Reference Lood110). It can only be speculated whether this is of importance for other cfDNA-associated disorders such as sepsis, obesity or liver failure.

Analysis of plasma cfDNA derived from mitochondria and bacteria has been suggested as a potential tool to distinguish septic from sterile causes of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Ref. Reference Sursal114). This is important because also in sepsis with bacteraemia, the total human cfDNA is elevated, especially in patients with a worse prognosis (Refs Reference Huttunen115, Reference Forsblom116). At least in one study in sepsis patients, concentrations of cfDNA gave a better prognostic information than the standard clinical scoring systems or established coagulation and inflammatory markers (Ref. Reference Dwivedi117). In another study, higher cfDNA was a prognostic factor for patients with sepsis-induced acute kidney injury (Ref. Reference Clementi118). Analysis of cfDNA, especially when done quickly and easily, could improve the decision making in critical care patients (Ref. Reference Avriel8). This shows that the rapid turnover of cfDNA is advantageous for monitoring acute pathologic processes and could also be used for other fields, not only emergency medicine.

Urinary cfDNA as a biomarker

The cfDNA present in the urine might originate from plasma. Since it passes through the glomerular filter, it was termed transrenal DNA (Ref. Reference Botezatu119). When the PCR is designed to target very short amplicons and contamination is prevented, the transrenal urinary cfDNA can be used for the detection of fetal gender in pregnant women. However, the specificity of the assay is much lower than for plasma cfDNA (Ref. Reference Shekhtman120). Using bisulphite sequencing it was found that cfDNA in the urine originates from blood cells, kidney and urinary tract cells and the proportion of cfDNA from these cell types is very variable (Ref. Reference Cheng80). It has been shown that after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, donor-derived DNA can be found in the urine of the recipient. In contrast to the urinary recipient cfDNA, the donor-derived urinary cfDNA was less fragmented than in plasma suggesting another source of this urinary cfDNA than plasma, potentially the donor-derived cells of the renal tubular system (Ref. Reference Hung121). Urinary tract infections lead to an increase in urinary cfDNA confirming that the urinary tract might be an important source of urinary cfDNA (Ref. Reference Garcia Moreira122). The currently available data suggest that the contribution to the pool of urinary cfDNA from plasma and from the urinary tract vary depending on the analysed disease and yet unknown factors.

Injection of lipopolysaccharide or other toxins in experimental animals leads to an increase in cfDNA concentrations in both, plasma and urine (Ref. Reference Bret123). The urinary cfDNA was proposed as a marker of kidney damage, as it increases in an animal model studying the nephrotoxicity of mercury (Ref. Reference Bret124). Heat-shock proteins and cfDNA in the urine have been suggested to be a possible indicator of acute renal injury in sepsis, but clinical studies brought rather sobering results (Ref. Reference Vaara125). Another urinary marker derived from DNA is 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine. This is often used for the assessment of oxidative DNA damage or subsequent DNA repair, but its validity has been questioned in the past (Ref. Reference Cooke, Henderson and Evans126) and might not be related to urinary cfDNA. In patients with hantavirus-induced nephropathy, plasma cfDNA, but not the urinary cfDNA, was associated with clinical symptoms (Ref. Reference Outinen127). In a recently published case report about a patient with otitis media, the cfDNA in the urine was used for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis causing the infection (Ref. Reference Petrucci128). The determination of cfDNA amount in urine, similarly to plasma cfDNA, is unspecific and increases in a number of different diseases, but combining quantitation and targeted analyses of the sequences can increase its diagnostic value.

Recent studies pointed to the possibility that urinary cfDNA could be a valuable biomarker if the analysis targets specifically mitochondrial DNA in the urine. The concentration of urinary mitochondrial DNA was higher in patients with acute kidney injury. Even more, it was related to the progression of their disease. This finding was confirmed in an animal experiment where the ischaemia-induced renal injury and the urinary mitochondrial DNA correlated positively (Ref. Reference Whitaker129). Mitochondrial DNA in the urine is higher in patients with chronic renal injury as well. When patients with essential and renovascular hypertension were compared with healthy volunteers, urinary mitochondrial DNA was higher in two independent cohorts. It was even associated with standard markers of renal injury such as kidney injury molecule-1 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (Ref. Reference Eirin130). Further results focus not only on the quantity, but also on the quality and fragmentation status of urinary mitochondrial DNA can be expected.

The role of cfDNA in disease pathology

Systemic lupus

Systemic lupus erythematosus was the first disease that was thought to be caused by cfDNA. First, it was hypothesised that the immunogenic stimulus that induces the production of auto-antibodies is the ssDNA (Ref. Reference Koffler131). Later, it has been shown that an injection of lipopolysaccharide into mice leads to release of DNA that causes the immune reaction with auto-antibody production. The complexes of DNA with the particular antibodies were found in the glomerular basement membrane where they induced sterile inflammation (Ref. Reference Izui132). The DNA bound to the antibodies had a low molecular weight suggesting a high fragmentation (Ref. Reference Bruneau and Benveniste133). The presence of DNA in the immune complexes seems to be specific for lupus and not for other types of nephritis (Refs Reference Williams and Adu134, Reference Adu, Dobson and Williams135). However, when plasma cfDNA was measured using more modern techniques, the concentrations were only slightly higher in lupus patients and showed a considerable overlap with control subjects (Ref. Reference McCoubrey-Hoyer, Okarma and Holman136). It becomes clear that cfDNA is not a single factor involved in the pathogenesis of lupus. By analysing DNA from necrotic and apoptotic cells administered to mice it was shown that the resulting DNA fragments were short and very likely protected from further degradation by histones in form of nucleosomes (Ref. Reference Pisetsky and Jiang137). It could be that cfDNA has to be bound to histones or other molecules or be released in a specific context to induce auto-inflammation. This context could be represented by cell death that is accompanied by the release of damage-associated molecular patterns that drive inflammation. This can lead locally to the death of further cells. This vicious cycle might be an important pathomechanism in several autoimmune diseases including lupus, graft rejection and cancer (Ref. Reference Linkermann138).

The most important work describing cfDNA in lupus patients uses massively parallel sequencing of plasma DNA (Ref. Reference Chan24). The results clearly showed that the cfDNA in lupus patients has a skewed size distribution of cfDNA fragments with a higher proportion of shorter fragments. The shortening even correlated with disease activity. It seems that the short fragments are protected by binding to immunoglobulins. In addition, the methylation analysis revealed that these short fragments are hypomethylated in comparison to cfDNA that is not protected by immunoglubulins. The cfDNA in lupus patients is not only a biomarker. Current therapeutic efforts in lupus are focusing on the clearance of neutrophil extracellular traps and, thus, on decreasing of circulating cfDNA, using deoxyribonuclease (Refs Reference Barnado, Crofford and Oates139, Reference Gupta and Kaplan140).

Lupus patients cannot efficiently degrade neutrophil extracellular traps because of lower deoxyribonuclease activity (Ref. Reference Hakkim141). This might be because of genetic variability as a polymorphism in the deoxyribonuclease gene was found to be related to the risk for lupus nephritis (Ref. Reference Camicia142). Low deoxyribonuclease activity seems to be a predisposing factor for lupus (Ref. Reference Gajic-Veljic143). Besides genetic factors, the activity of deoxyribonuclease in plasma can be inhibited by the presence of the complement protein C1q (Ref. Reference Leffler144). Conversely, the neutrophil extracellular traps activate complement. The starting mechanism of this circulus vitiosus is unknown, but the resulting higher amounts of extracellular traps lead to endothelial dysfunction and potentially also to renal injury (Refs Reference Allam13, Reference Carmona-Rivera145). Interestingly, indices for a similar mechanism have been found in ANCA-associated microscopic polyangiitis (Refs Reference Yoshida104, Reference Nakazawa105), but this is not generally accepted and some studies have brought opposite results (Ref. Reference Wang106). It is proposed that cfDNA is released via netosis and that the subsequent induction auto-antibody production, immune complexes formation and inflammation associated cell death including netosis further increase cfDNA (Ref. Reference Fenton146). This cfDNA includes mitochondrial DNA that seems to be immunogenic and leads to the production of antibodies (Ref. Reference Wang147). Interestingly, administration of recombinant deoxyribonuclease did not affect the disease activity – neither in mice (Ref. Reference Verthelyi148) nor in patients with lupus (Ref. Reference Davis149). However, the enzymatic activity might have been inhibited by circulating factors in plasma. Whether targeting pathways recognising cfDNA, that is, Toll-like receptors, or use of deoxyribonucleases that are not inhibited by factors present in the plasma of lupus patients, is a relevant clinical option that remains to be tested (Ref. Reference Ahn, Ruiz and Barber150). The only clinical possibility to inhibit netosis is to apply anti-inflammatory drugs, which already are a mainstay therapy in lupus patients (Ref. Reference Lapponi151).

Kidney injury

A recently published experiment analysed the role of cfDNA in acute kidney injury induced by ischaemia. The renal injury was associated with histological damage, negative functional consequences and higher intra-renal DNA debris. More importantly, administration of exogenous deoxyribonuclease ameliorated the induced damage and resulted in improvement of renal perfusion and functions (Ref. Reference Peer152). This indicates that cfDNA is not only a consequence of renal tissue damage, but its release can lead to an amplification of the damaging processes. It is not clear whether the positive effect of deoxyribonuclease is restricted to this specific model or it could be observed in other models of kidney failure. When mitochondrial DNA was analysed, its concentrations in the urine were found to be a good biomarker of acute as well as chronic renal injury (Refs Reference Whitaker129, Reference Eirin130). But beyond that, animal experiments proved its pathogenic role in the development of hepatic injury as a consequence of ischaemia-reperfusion injury of the kidney (Ref. Reference Bakker153). The released cfDNA, especially from mitochondria is recognised by the Toll-like receptor 9 and induces further damage to distant organs. This was proved by the analysis of the consequences of ischaemia-reperfusion injury of the kidney in Toll-like receptor 9 knock-out mice. While the renal injury was similar to the wild-type mice, the induced secondary hepatic injury was reduced by the genetic defect (Ref. Reference Bakker153). As mitochondrial DNA is not protected by histones, this is another potential therapeutic niche for deoxyribonuclease administration.

Circulating mitochondrial DNA was analysed in patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and subsequent acute kidney injury. Circulating mitochondrial DNA increases in this inflammatory disease, but does not correlate with renal damage and does not increase in acute kidney injury, but the amount of mitochondrial DNA in urine correlates with urinary markers of inflammation and coagulation and probably has a role in the pathophysiology of renal failure during systemic inflammatory response syndrome (Ref. Reference Jansen154). The pathophysiological effect of mitochondrial DNA in the development of acute renal failure during sepsis was described in the animal model. During sepsis the increased circulating mitochondrial DNA activates Toll-like receptor 9 and the signalling pathway leading to cytokine production, inflammation, oxidative stress and renal failure (Ref. Reference Tsuji155).

Haemodialysis

Haemodialysis increases the concentration of plasma DNA because of apoptosis of leukocytes as shown by the appearance of typical ladders after electrophoresis (Ref. Reference Atamaniuk156). Although the increase is observed in all patients, it varies quantitatively. Compared with concentrations before haemodialysis session, initially up to fourfold higher cfDNA concentrations are found during the procedure but decrease to the pre-dialyses levels within 30 min after haemodialysis (Ref. Reference Garcia Moreira7). The timing of sampling and cfDNA monitoring is important. One hour after haemodialysis no major difference to the basal values before haemodialysis was observed (Ref. Reference Cichota157). The temporary increase of cfDNA during haemodialysis did not correlate with either dialysis duration or its efficiency (Ref. Reference Opatrna158). Children on peritoneal dialysis have a twofold higher cfDNA when compared with healthy controls (Ref. Reference Ozkaya159) and the concentrations of cfDNA in the effluent are related to peritoneal membrane degeneration (Ref. Reference Pajek160) and peritonitis (Ref. Reference Virzi161). Haemodialysis induces inflammation and this can be monitored using cfDNA-based analyses of differences in methylation of promoters of pro-inflammatory genes (Ref. Reference Korabecna162). The released cfDNA itself could be the cause of the inflammation, but this requires further studies. One small study showed that the cfDNA concentration after haemodialysis was a predictor of all-cause mortality in these patients (Ref. Reference Tovbin163). A recent larger study focusing on mitochondrial DNA confirmed this finding. Patients in the highest quartile of plasma mitochondrial DNA had a much worse event-free survival than patients with lower mitochondrial DNA. In addition, the concentrations of mitochondrial DNA correlated positively with inflammatory markers (Ref. Reference Szeto164). Whether this represents a causal relationship is not clear.

Other diseases

Apart from its role in lupus, it is currently not clear whether cfDNA might also play a functional role in disease development or progression, in particularly those associated with very high cfDNA concentrations. In cancer, the release of tumour DNA into blood might possibly lead to the transformation of distant cells with the tumour-specific mutations via horizontal-transfer. After homologous recombination, these mutations could be functionally relevant and induce metastasis or secondary tumour formation at a different site (Ref. Reference Garcia-Olmo and Garcia-Olmo165). This hypothesis is called genometastasis and tries to explain how the transfer of tumour genes instead tumour cells could aid the spreading of solid tumours. The authors have shown that plasma of tumour-bearing rats contains tumour DNA (Ref. Reference Garcia-Olmo166), that is related to size of the tumour (Ref. Reference Garcia-Olmo167) and that this DNA can be internalised by cells in vitro (Ref. Reference Garcia-Olmo168). These experiments, however, await confirmation by other laboratories. Although the idea is simple and exciting, especially with regards to the potential new therapeutic modalities, further studies are needed to confirm the results. Whether cfDNA has any role in physiology and pathology of diseases, and whether administration of deoxyribonucleases has any therapeutic potential similar to ribonucleases that prevent atherosclerosis induced by extracellular RNA remains unclear (Refs Reference Simsekyilmaz169, Reference Fischer170).

In healthy elderly people cfDNA is associated with inflammation (Ref. Reference Jylhava171). In cell culture, cfDNA, but also plasma from patients after haemodialysis induces interleukin 6 production in human monocytes, suggesting a pro-inflammatory effect (Ref. Reference Atamaniuk172). On the other hand, a recently published experiment in mice suggests that injection of cfDNA isolated from mice with colitis into healthy mice prevents the subsequently induced colon inflammation (Ref. Reference Muzes173). In a murine lupus model, it was shown that the recognition of cfDNA by macrophages could be facilitated by the chromatin protein and inflammation marker high mobility group box 1 (Ref. Reference Li174). On the other hand, elevated deoxyribonuclease was found to be associated with kidney injury in urolithiasis (Ref. Reference Yusof175). These contradictory findings clearly show that more research on the effects of cfDNA is needed.

Technical issues

The concentration of cfDNA is very low and it is present only in very small fragments. This means that the isolation of cfDNA is not trivial and various isolation procedures have been tested with variable outcomes (Refs Reference Jorgez176, Reference Kirsch177, Reference Xue178, Reference Sharma, Vouros and Glick179). As a result of the physicochemical properties of cfDNA, either specific DNA isolation kits or a large volume of starting plasma or urine are required. For simple cfDNA measurement, venous plasma can be substituted by finger capillary plasma as shown in an experiment on exercising athletes (Ref. Reference Breitbach180). Serum has a 14-fold higher cfDNA concentration than plasma. Higher amounts are mainly caused by lysis of the donor cells during coagulation (Ref. Reference Lui9). Both serum and plasma are routinely used and suitable for the analyses (Ref. Reference Fleischhacker and Schmidt11), however, some cancer-related mutations might be undetectable in serum because of possible contamination by DNA released during coagulation (Ref. Reference Hibi181).

Analysis of cfDNA in body fluids, such as plasma or urine, as the so-called liquid biopsy has one major advantage over standard biopsy – noninvasiveness. The true clinical usefulness has yet to be confirmed in direct head to head comparisons with currently used standard tests. Beyond the quantity and integrity of cfDNA it will likely be of importance to describe the origin of cfDNA by methylation-specific markers. Protocols for the bisulphite conversion and subsequent PCR or sequencing analysis have been recently modified by using targeted amplification to allow analysis of samples with very low amount of cfDNA, including plasma and urine (Ref. Reference Jung182).

Automated cfDNA isolation protocols can help to increase the throughput of the measurement and also lower the risk of contamination (Ref. Reference Huang183). The total amount of cfDNA might be influenced by haemolysis during blood collection, storage or centrifugation. It has been shown that an additional centrifugation step after plasma separation is needed to exclude contamination with large cellular DNA (Ref. Reference Page184). Specific blood collection tubes that prevent cell lysis and, thus, contamination of cfDNA with genomic DNA as well as extracellular RNA from cytoplasmic RNA from lysed leucocytes are available, but increase the cost of sampling (Refs Reference Fernando185, Reference Hidestrand186, Reference Norton187, Reference Qin, Williams and Fernando188). The important factors of the pre-analytical phase that could potentially bias cfDNA analysis in plasma have been reviewed recently (Ref. Reference El Messaoudi189). If haemolysis and contamination are prevented, then plasma can be stored for several years at −20°C without major effects on cfDNA (Ref. Reference Koide190). Efforts are made to prepare a simple detection and quantification method of cfDNA without the need of DNA isolation or PCR. A fluorometric assay that quantifies cfDNA in serum is available, but its use for plasma samples was limited because of insufficient sensitivity (Ref. Reference Goldshtein, Hausmann and Douvdevani191). Currently available rapid assays based on a similar principle can be helpful for critically ill patients despite the lack of specificity (Ref. Reference Shoham, Krieger and Perry95). For other purposes, the gold standard is the real-time PCR targeting various genes. The choice of the target can, however, bias the outcome (Ref. Reference Devonshire192). The use of several target genes for the quantification of cfDNA improves the reliability of the analysis. Specific methods can be applied to quantify the cfDNA released in the form of neutrophil extracellular traps (Ref. Reference Kraaij193).

Apart from technical issues, before sampling, biological features should be taken into account. CfDNA seems not to be influenced by age (except of nonagenarians where cfDNA was higher), gender, menstrual cycle or frequency of blood donations (Refs Reference Zhong194, Reference Polcher195, Reference Jylhava196). This might be an advantage for a biomarker as it can be used for monitoring of rapid changes in a patient. Smoking increases cfDNA nearly threefold (Ref. Reference Urato197) and physical activity can temporarily increase cfDNA concentrations up to tenfold, at least for a few hours (Refs Reference Atamaniuk198, Reference Beiter199). One study reported relatively high intraindividual fluctuation of cfDNA concentrations in healthy individuals (13.5-fold) (Ref. Reference Zhong5).

Conclusion

CfDNA circulating in plasma or present in urine can be a useful source of information for prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases, haemodialysis induced cell damage, renal or bladder tumour screening and monitoring, and the detection of kidney transplant rejection. With the use of modern sequencing techniques, the genome of the foetus or the tumour can be reconstructed and used for further genetic analyses. Several questions remain to be answered, for example, what is the role of kidney in the clearance of cfDNA from plasma? Or whether cfDNA might be also implicated in other renal diseases beyond lupus nephritis? What is the potential of cfDNA in nontumourous kidney diseases beyond transplant rejection? Finally, it should be mentioned that as other types of DNA, also cfDNA encodes genetic information, could be involved in rapid communication between cells in the form of horizontal gene transfer and might be a potential mechanism of action making it an even more exciting area of research (Refs Reference Peters and Pretorius200, Reference Vlkova201).

Acknowledgements

The authors are supported by grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG: SFB/TRR57 and SFB/TRR219; BO3755/3-1 and BO 3755/6-1 to P.B.), German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF: STOP-FSGS-01GM1518A to P.B.), Slovak Research & Development Agency (APVV-16-0273 to P.C.) and Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic (VEGA 1/0156/17 to B.V. and VEGA 1/0092/17 to P.C.).

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Mandel, P. and Metais, P. (1948) Les acides nucleiques du plasma sanguin chez l'homme. Comptes Rendus Des Seances De La Societe De Biologie Et De Ses Filiales 142, 241-243 Google Scholar
2. Steinman, C.R. (1975) Free DNA in serum and plasma from normal adults. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 56, 512-515 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Steinman, C.R. and Ackad, A. (1977) Appearance of circulating DNA during hemodialysis. American Journal of Medicine 62, 693-697 Google Scholar
4. Fournie, G.J. et al. (1989) Plasma DNA in patients undergoing hemodialysis or hemofiltration: cytolysis in artificial kidney is responsible for the release of DNA in circulation. American Journal of Nephrology 9, 384-391 Google ScholarPubMed
5. Zhong, X.Y. et al. (2000) Fluctuation of maternal and fetal free extracellular circulatory DNA in maternal plasma. Obstetrics & Gynecology 96, 991-996 Google ScholarPubMed
6. Rumore, P. et al. (1992) Haemodialysis as a model for studying endogenous plasma DNA: oligonucleosome-like structure and clearance. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 90, 56-62 Google Scholar
7. Garcia Moreira, V. et al. (2006) Increase in and clearance of cell-free plasma DNA in hemodialysis quantified by real-time PCR. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 44, 1410-1415 Google Scholar
8. Avriel, A. et al. (2014) Admission cell free DNA levels predict 28-day mortality in patients with severe sepsis in intensive care. PLoS ONE 9, e100514 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Lui, Y.Y. et al. (2002) Predominant hematopoietic origin of cell-free DNA in plasma and serum after sex-mismatched bone marrow transplantation. Clinical Chemistry 48, 421-427 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Snyder, T.M. et al. (2011) Universal noninvasive detection of solid organ transplant rejection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108, 6229-6234 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Fleischhacker, M. and Schmidt, B. (2007) Circulating nucleic acids (CNAs) and cancer – a survey. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1775, 181-232 Google Scholar
12. De Vlaminck, I. et al. (2014) Circulating cell-free DNA enables noninvasive diagnosis of heart transplant rejection. Science Translational Medicine 6, 241- 277 Google Scholar
13. Allam, R. et al. (2014) Extracellular histones in tissue injury and inflammation. Journal of Molecular Medicine (Berlin) 92, 465-472 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Breitbach, S., Tug, S. and Simon, P. (2012) Circulating cell-free DNA: an up-coming molecular marker in exercise physiology. Sports Medicine 42, 565-586 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Jeong da, W. et al. (2015) Effect of blood pressure and glycemic control on the plasma cell-free DNA in hemodialysis patients. Kidney Research and Clinical Practice 34, 201-206 Google Scholar
16. Lui, Y.Y. et al. (2003) Origin of plasma cell-free DNA after solid organ transplantation. Clinical Chemistry 49, 495-496 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Beck, J. et al. (2015) Donor-derived cell-free DNA is a novel universal biomarker for allograft rejection in solid organ transplantation. Transplantation Proceedings 47, 2400-2403 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Lo, Y.M. and Chiu, R.W. (2007) Prenatal diagnosis: progress through plasma nucleic acids. Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 71-77 Google ScholarPubMed
19. Haghiac, M. et al. (2012) Increased death of adipose cells, a path to release cell-free DNA into systemic circulation of obese women. Obesity (Silver Spring) 20, 2213-2219 Google Scholar
20. Chan, K.C. et al. (2004) Size distributions of maternal and fetal DNA in maternal plasma. Clinical Chemistry 50, 88-92 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Schwarzenbach, H., Hoon, D.S. and Pantel, K. (2011) Cell-free nucleic acids as biomarkers in cancer patients. Nature Reviews. Cancer 11, 426-437 Google Scholar
22. Carlson, J.A. et al. (1988) Glomerular localization of circulating single-stranded DNA in mice. Dependence on the molecular weight of DNA. Journal of Autoimmunity 1, 231-241 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Li, Y. et al. (2006) Cell-free DNA in maternal plasma: is it all a question of size? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1075, 81-87 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Chan, R.W. et al. (2014) Plasma DNA aberrations in systemic lupus erythematosus revealed by genomic and methylomic sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, E5302E5311 Google Scholar
25. Cherepanova, A.V. et al. (2008) Deoxyribonuclease activity and circulating DNA concentration in blood plasma of patients with prostate tumors. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1137, 218-221 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Stephan, F. et al. (2014) Cooperation of factor VII-activating protease and serum DNase I in the release of nucleosomes from necrotic cells. Arthritis and Rheumatology 66, 686-693 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Nadano, D., Yasuda, T. and Kishi, K. (1993) Measurement of deoxyribonuclease I activity in human tissues and body fluids by a single radial enzyme-diffusion method. Clinical Chemistry 39, 448-452 Google Scholar
28. Gauthier, V.J., Tyler, L.N. and Mannik, M. (1996) Blood clearance kinetics and liver uptake of mononucleosomes in mice. Journal of Immunology 156, 1151-1156 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Emlen, W. and Mannik, M. (1984) Effect of DNA size and strandedness on the in vivo clearance and organ localization of DNA. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 56, 185-192 Google Scholar
30. Du Clos, T.W. et al. (1999) Chromatin clearance in C57Bl/10 mice: interaction with heparan sulphate proteoglycans and receptors on Kupffer cells. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 117, 403-411 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Lo, Y.M.D. et al. (1999) Rapid clearance of fetal DNA from maternal plasma. American Journal of Human Genetics 64, 218-224 Google Scholar
32. Chused, T.M., Steinberg, A.D. and Talal, N. (1972) The clearance and localization of nucleic acids by New Zealand and normal mice. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 12, 465-476 Google Scholar
33. Jylhava, J. et al. (2012) A genome-wide association study identifies UGT1A1 as a regulator of serum cell-free DNA in young adults: the cardiovascular risk in young Finns study. PLoS ONE 7, e35426 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Williams, J.A. et al. (2002) Differential modulation of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1)-catalyzed estradiol-3-glucuronidation by the addition of UGT1A1 substrates and other compounds to human liver microsomes. Drug Metabolism and Disposition 30, 1266-1273 Google Scholar
35. Korabecna, M. et al. (2008) Cell-free plasma DNA during peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis and in patients with chronic kidney disease. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1137, 296-301 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Yu, S.C. et al. (2013) High-resolution profiling of fetal DNA clearance from maternal plasma by massively parallel sequencing. Clinical Chemistry 59, 1228-1237 Google Scholar
37. Anker, P. et al. (1999) Detection of circulating tumour DNA in the blood (plasma/serum) of cancer patients. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 18, 65-73 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Tamkovich, S.N. et al. (2006) Circulating DNA and DNase activity in human blood. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1075, 191-196 Google Scholar
39. Papadopoulou, E. et al. (2004) Cell-free DNA and RNA in plasma as a new molecular marker for prostate cancer. Oncology Research 14, 439-445 Google Scholar
40. Cedervall, J. et al. (2015) Neutrophil extracellular traps accumulate in peripheral blood vessels and compromise organ function in tumor-bearing animals. Cancer Research 75, 2653-2662 Google Scholar
41. Boddy, J.L. et al. (2006) The role of cell-free DNA size distribution in the management of prostate cancer. Oncology Research 16, 35-41 Google Scholar
42. Chen, H. et al. (2012) Total serum DNA and DNA integrity: diagnostic value in patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Pathology 44, 318-324 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
43. Feng, J. et al. (2013) Plasma cell-free DNA and its DNA integrity as biomarker to distinguish prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia in patients with increased serum prostate-specific antigen. International Urology and Nephrology 45, 1023-1028 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44. Su, Y.H. et al. (2008) Detection of mutated K-ras DNA in urine, plasma, and serum of patients with colorectal carcinoma or adenomatous polyps. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1137, 197-206 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45. Chan, K.C. et al. (2013) Noninvasive detection of cancer-associated genome-wide hypomethylation and copy number aberrations by plasma DNA bisulfite sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 18761-18768 Google Scholar
46. Chan, K.C. et al. (2013) Cancer genome scanning in plasma: detection of tumor-associated copy number aberrations, single-nucleotide variants, and tumoral heterogeneity by massively parallel sequencing. Clinical Chemistry 59, 211-224 Google Scholar
47. Thierry, A.R. et al. (2014) Clinical validation of the detection of KRAS and BRAF mutations from circulating tumor DNA. Natural Medicines 20, 430-435 Google Scholar
48. Janku, F. et al. (2014) BRAF v600e mutations in urine and plasma cell-free DNA from patients with Erdheim-Chester disease. Oncotarget 5, 3607-3610 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49. Shi, X.Q. et al. (2017) Dynamic tracing for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in urinary circulating DNA in gastric cancer patients. Tumour Biology 39, 1010428317691681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
50. Chen, S. et al. (2017) Urinary circulating DNA detection for dynamic tracking of EGFR mutations for NSCLC patients treated with EGFR-TKIs. Clinical & Translational Oncology 19, 332-340 Google Scholar
51. Perego, R.A. et al. (2008) Concentration and microsatellite status of plasma DNA for monitoring patients with renal carcinoma. European Journal of Cancer 44, 1039-1047 Google Scholar
52. de Martino, M. et al. (2012) Serum cell-free DNA in renal cell carcinoma: a diagnostic and prognostic marker. Cancer 118, 82-90 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
53. Wan, J. et al. (2013) Monitoring of plasma cell-free DNA in predicting postoperative recurrence of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Urologia Internationalis 91, 273-278 Google Scholar
54. Gang, F. et al. (2010) Prediction of clear cell renal cell carcinoma by integrity of cell-free DNA in serum. Urology 75, 262-265 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
55. Hauser, S. et al. (2010) Cell-free circulating DNA: diagnostic value in patients with renal cell cancer. Anticancer Research 30, 2785-2789 Google Scholar
56. Shaked, G. et al. (2014) Recent advances in clinical applications of circulating cell-free DNA integrity. BioMed Research International 45, 6-11 Google Scholar
57. Lu, H. et al. (2016) Diagnostic and prognostic potential of circulating cell-free genomic and mitochondrial DNA fragments in clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients. Clinica Chimica Acta 452, 109-119 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
58. Hauser, S. et al. (2013) Serum DNA hypermethylation in patients with kidney cancer: results of a prospective study. Anticancer Research 33, 4651-4656 Google ScholarPubMed
59. Feng, G. et al. (2013) Quantification of plasma cell-free DNA in predicting therapeutic efficacy of sorafenib on metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Disease Markers 34, 105-111 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
60. Ellinger, J. et al. (2012) Circulating mitochondrial DNA in serum: a universal diagnostic biomarker for patients with urological malignancies. Urologic Oncology 30, 509-515 Google Scholar
61. Hoque, M.O. et al. (2004) Quantitative detection of promoter hypermethylation of multiple genes in the tumor, urine, and serum DNA of patients with renal cancer. Cancer Research 64, 5511-5517 Google Scholar
62. Urakami, S. et al. (2006) Wnt antagonist family genes as biomarkers for diagnosis, staging, and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma using tumor and serum DNA. Clinical Cancer Research 12, 6989-6997 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
63. Hoque, M.O. et al. (2006) Quantitation of promoter methylation of multiple genes in urine DNA and bladder cancer detection. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98, 996-1004 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
64. von Knobloch, R. et al. (2001) Serum DNA and urine DNA alterations of urinary transitional cell bladder carcinoma detected by fluorescent microsatellite analysis. International Journal of Cancer 94, 67-72 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65. Szarvas, T. et al. (2007) Deletion analysis of tumor and urinary DNA to detect bladder cancer: urine supernatant versus urine sediment. Oncology Reports 18, 405-409 Google ScholarPubMed
66. Little, B. et al. (2005) Use of polymerase chain reaction analysis of urinary DNA to detect bladder carcinoma. Urologic Oncology 23, 102-107 Google Scholar
67. Chang, H.W. et al. (2007) Urinary cell-free DNA as a potential tumor marker for bladder cancer. International Journal of Biological Markers 22, 287-294 Google Scholar
68. Zancan, M. et al. (2009) Evaluation of cell-free DNA in urine as a marker for bladder cancer diagnosis. International Journal of Biological Markers 24, 147-155 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
69. Casadio, V. et al. (2013) Urine cell-free DNA integrity as a marker for early prostate cancer diagnosis: a pilot study. BioMed Research International 2013, 270457 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
70. Casadio, V. et al. (2013) Urine cell-free DNA integrity as a marker for early bladder cancer diagnosis: preliminary data. Urologic Oncology 31, 1744-1750 Google Scholar
71. Zhao, A. et al. (2015) Cell-free RNA content in urine as a possible molecular diagnostic tool for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. International Journal of Cancer 136, 2610-2615 Google Scholar
72. Salvi, S. et al. (2015) Urine cell-free DNA integrity analysis for early detection of prostate cancer patients. Disease Markers 2015, 574120 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
73. Lo, Y.M. et al. (1998) Presence of donor-specific DNA in plasma of kidney and liver-transplant recipients. Lancet 351, 1329-1330 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
74. Zhong, X.Y. et al. (2001) Cell-free DNA in urine: a marker for kidney graft rejection, but not for prenatal diagnosis? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 945, 250-257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75. Adamek, M. et al. (2016) A fast and simple method for detecting and quantifying donor-derived cell-free DNA in sera of solid organ transplant recipients as a biomarker for graft function. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 54, 1147-1155 Google Scholar
76. Martins, P.N. et al. (2005) Quantification of donor-derived DNA in serum: a new approach of acute rejection diagnosis in a rat kidney transplantation model. Transplantation Proceedings 37, 87-88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77. Garcia Moreira, V. et al. (2009) Cell-free DNA as a noninvasive acute rejection marker in renal transplantation. Clinical Chemistry 55, 1958-1966 Google Scholar
78. Sigdel, T.K. and Sarwal, M.M. (2012) Cell-free DNA as a measure of transplant injury. Clinical Transplants 201-205 Google ScholarPubMed
79. Lee, H. et al. (2017) Evaluation of digital PCR as a technique for monitoring acute rejection in kidney transplantation. Genomics and Informatics 15, 2-10 Google Scholar
80. Cheng, T.H.T. et al. (2017) Genomewide bisulfite sequencing reveals the origin and time-dependent fragmentation of urinary cfDNA. Clinical Biochemistry 50, 496-501 Google Scholar
81. Bloom, R.D. et al. (2017) Cell-free DNA and active rejection in kidney allografts. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 28, 2221-2232 Google Scholar
82. Gielis, E.M. et al. (2015) Cell-free DNA: an upcoming biomarker in transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation 15, 2541-2551 Google Scholar
83. Oellerich, M. et al. (2016) Graft-derived cell-free DNA as a marker of transplant graft injury. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring 38(Suppl 1), S75S79 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
84. Antonatos, D. et al. (2006) Cell-free DNA levels as a prognostic marker in acute myocardial infarction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1075, 278-281 Google Scholar
85. Destouni, A. et al. (2009) Cell-free DNA levels in acute myocardial infarction patients during hospitalization. Acta Cardiologica 64, 51-57 Google Scholar
86. Shimony, A. et al. (2010) Cell free DNA detected by a novel method in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients. Acute Cardiac Care 12, 109-111 Google Scholar
87. Huang, C.H. et al. (2012) Circulating cell-free DNA levels correlate with postresuscitation survival rates in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. Resuscitation 83, 213-218 Google Scholar
88. Gornik, I. et al. (2014) Prognostic value of cell-free DNA in plasma of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors at ICU admission and 24 h post-admission. Resuscitation 85, 233-237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89. Zaravinos, A. et al. (2011) Levosimendan reduces plasma cell-free DNA levels in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis 31, 180-187 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
90. Boyko, M. et al. (2011) Cell-free DNA – a marker to predict ischemic brain damage in a rat stroke experimental model. Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology 23, 222-228 Google Scholar
91. Macher, H. et al. (2012) Role of early cell-free DNA levels decrease as a predictive marker of fatal outcome after severe traumatic brain injury. Clinica Chimica Acta 414, 12-17 Google Scholar
92. Ohayon, S. et al. (2012) Cell-free DNA as a marker for prediction of brain damage in traumatic brain injury in rats. Journal of Neurotrauma 29, 261-267 Google Scholar
93. Ren, B. et al. (2013) Is plasma cell-free DNA really a useful marker for diagnosis and treatment of trauma patients? Clinica Chimica Acta 424, 109-113 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
94. Chiu, T.W. et al. (2006) Plasma cell-free DNA as an indicator of severity of injury in burn patients. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 44, 13-17 Google Scholar
95. Shoham, Y., Krieger, Y. and Perry, Z.H. (2014) Admission cell free DNA as a prognostic factor in burns: quantification by use of a direct rapid fluorometric technique. BioMed Research International 2014, 306580 Google Scholar
96. Jylhava, J. et al. (2012) Circulating cell-free DNA is associated with mortality and inflammatory markers in nonagenarians: the vitality 90+ study. Experimental Gerontology 47, 372-378 Google Scholar
97. Zhong, X.Y. et al. (2007) Increased concentrations of antibody-bound circulatory cell-free DNA in rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical Chemistry 53, 1609-1614 Google Scholar
98. Shin, C. et al. (2008) Increased cell-free DNA concentrations in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences 62, 721-727 Google Scholar
99. Ye, L. et al. (2010) Quantification of circulating cell-free DNA in the serum of patients with obstructive sleep apnea-hypopnea syndrome. Lung 188, 469-474 Google Scholar
100. El Tarhouny, S.A. et al. (2010) Assessment of cell-free DNA with microvascular complication of type II diabetes mellitus, using PCR and ELISA. Nucleosides Nucleotides & Nucleic Acids 29, 228-236 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
101. Arnalich, F., Lopez-Collazo, E. and Montiel, C. (2011) Diagnostic potential of circulating cell-free DNA in patients needing mechanical ventilation: promises and challenges. Critical Care 15, 187 Google Scholar
102. Okkonen, M. et al. (2011) Plasma cell-free DNA in patients needing mechanical ventilation. Critical Care 15, R196 Google Scholar
103. Ramos, M.V. et al. (2016) Induction of neutrophil extracellular traps in shiga toxin-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome. Journal of Innate Immunity 8, 400-411 Google Scholar
104. Yoshida, M. et al. (2016) Myeloperoxidase anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody affinity is associated with the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps in the kidney and vasculitis activity in myeloperoxidase anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated microscopic polyangiitis. Nephrology (Carlton) 21, 624-629 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
105. Nakazawa, D. et al. (2014) Enhanced formation and disordered regulation of NETs in myeloperoxidase-ANCA-associated microscopic polyangiitis. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 25, 990-997 Google Scholar
106. Wang, H. et al. (2016) Circulating level of neutrophil extracellular traps is not a useful biomarker for assessing disease activity in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. PLoS ONE 11, e0148197 Google Scholar
107. Bossola, M. et al. (2009) Circulating bacterial-derived DNA fragments and markers of inflammation in chronic hemodialysis patients. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 4, 379-385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108. Kwan, B.C. et al. (2013) Circulating bacterial-derived DNA fragments as a marker of systemic inflammation in peritoneal dialysis. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 28, 2139-2145 Google Scholar
109. Hemmi, H. et al. (2000) A toll-like receptor recognizes bacterial DNA. Nature 408, 740-745 Google Scholar
110. Lood, C. et al. (2016) Neutrophil extracellular traps enriched in oxidized mitochondrial DNA are interferogenic and contribute to lupus-like disease. Natural Medicines 22, 146-153 Google Scholar
111. Zachariah, R. et al. (2009) Circulating cell-free DNA as a potential biomarker for minimal and mild endometriosis. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 18, 407-411 Google Scholar
112. Zhang, Q. et al. (2010) Circulating mitochondrial DAMPs cause inflammatory responses to injury. Nature 464, 104-107 Google Scholar
113. Nakahira, K. et al. (2013) Circulating mitochondrial DNA in patients in the ICU as a marker of mortality: derivation and validation. PLoS Medicine 10, e1001577; discussion e77Google Scholar
114. Sursal, T. et al. (2013) Plasma bacterial and mitochondrial DNA distinguish bacterial sepsis from sterile systemic inflammatory response syndrome and quantify inflammatory tissue injury in nonhuman primates. Shock 39, 55-62 Google Scholar
115. Huttunen, R. et al. (2011) Fatal outcome in bacteremia is characterized by high plasma cell free DNA concentration and apoptotic DNA fragmentation: a prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 6, e21700 Google Scholar
116. Forsblom, E. et al. (2014) High cell-free DNA predicts fatal outcome among Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia patients with intensive care unit treatment. PLoS ONE 9, e87741 Google Scholar
117. Dwivedi, D.J. et al. (2012) Prognostic utility and characterization of cell-free DNA in patients with severe sepsis. Critical Care 16, R151 Google Scholar
118. Clementi, A. et al. (2016) The role of cell-free plasma DNA in critically Ill patients with sepsis. Blood Purification 41, 34-40 Google Scholar
119. Botezatu, I. et al. (2000) Genetic analysis of DNA excreted in urine: a new approach for detecting specific genomic DNA sequences from cells dying in an organism. Clinical Chemistry 46, 1078-1084 Google Scholar
120. Shekhtman, E.M. et al. (2009) Optimization of transrenal DNA analysis: detection of fetal DNA in maternal urine. Clinical Chemistry 55, 723-729 Google Scholar
121. Hung, E.C.W. et al. (2009) Presence of donor-derived DNA and cells in the urine of sex-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: implication for the transrenal hypothesis. Clinical Chemistry 55, 715-722 Google Scholar
122. Garcia Moreira, V. et al. (2009) Elevated transrenal DNA (cell-free urine DNA) in patients with urinary tract infection compared to healthy controls. Clinical Biochemistry 42, 729-731 Google Scholar
123. Bret, L. et al. (1990) Extracellular DNA in blood and urine as a potential marker for cytotoxicity and nephrotoxicity in the mouse. Renal Failure 12, 133-139 Google Scholar
124. Bret, L. et al. (1993) Kidney tubule enzymes and extracellular DNA in urine as markers for nephrotoxicity in the Guinea pig. Enzyme and Protein 47, 27-36 Google Scholar
125. Vaara, S.T. et al. (2016) Urinary biomarkers indicative of apoptosis and acute kidney injury in the critically Ill. PLoS ONE 11, e0149956 Google Scholar
126. Cooke, M.S., Henderson, P.T. and Evans, M.D. (2009) Sources of extracellular, oxidatively-modified DNA lesions: implications for their measurement in urine. Journal of Clinical Biochemistry and Nutrition 45, 255-270 Google Scholar
127. Outinen, T.K. et al. (2012) Plasma cell-free DNA levels are elevated in acute Puumala hantavirus infection. PLoS ONE 7, e31455 Google Scholar
128. Petrucci, R. et al. (2014) Use of transrenal DNA for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in children: a case of tubercular otitis media. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 53, 336-338 Google Scholar
129. Whitaker, R.M. et al. (2015) Urinary mitochondrial DNA is a biomarker of mitochondrial disruption and renal dysfunction in acute kidney injury. Kidney International 88, 1336-1344 Google Scholar
130. Eirin, A. et al. (2016) Urinary mitochondrial DNA copy number identifies chronic renal injury in hypertensive patients. Hypertension 68, 401-410 Google Scholar
131. Koffler, D. et al. (1973) The occurrence of single-stranded DNA in the serum of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and other diseases. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 52, 198-204 Google Scholar
132. Izui, S. et al. (1977) Features of systemic lupus erythematosus in mice injected with bacterial lipopolysaccharides: identificantion of circulating DNA and renal localization of DNA-anti-DNA complexes. Journal of Experimental Medicine 145, 1115-1130 Google Scholar
133. Bruneau, C. and Benveniste, J. (1979) Circulating DNA:anti-DNA complexes in systemic lupus erythematosus. Detection and characterization by ultracentrifugation. The Journal of Clinical Investigation 64, 191-198 Google Scholar
134. Williams, D.G. and Adu, D. (1980) Circulating DNA-anti-DNA complexes in lupus nephritis and idiopathic nephritis. Proceedings of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association 17, 629-636 Google Scholar
135. Adu, D., Dobson, J. and Williams, D.G. (1981) DNA-anti-DNA circulating complexes in the nephritis of systemic lupus erythematosus. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 43, 605-614 Google Scholar
136. McCoubrey-Hoyer, A., Okarma, T.B. and Holman, H.R. (1984) Partial purification and characterization of plasma DNA and its relation to disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. American Journal of Medicine 77, 23-34 Google Scholar
137. Pisetsky, D.S. and Jiang, N. (2006) The generation of extracellular DNA in SLE: the role of death and sex. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 64, 200-204 Google Scholar
138. Linkermann, A. et al. (2014) Regulated cell death and inflammation: an auto-amplification loop causes organ failure. Nature Reviews. Immunology 14, 759-767 Google Scholar
139. Barnado, A., Crofford, L.J. and Oates, J.C. (2016) At the bedside: neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) as targets for biomarkers and therapies in autoimmune diseases. Journal of Leukocyte Biology 99, 265-278 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
140. Gupta, S. and Kaplan, M.J. (2016) The role of neutrophils and NETosis in autoimmune and renal diseases. Nature Reviews Nephrology 12, 402-413 Google Scholar
141. Hakkim, A. et al. (2010) Impairment of neutrophil extracellular trap degradation is associated with lupus nephritis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 9813-9818 Google Scholar
142. Camicia, G. et al. (2015) Association between severe disease course and nephritis with Q222R polymorphism in DNAse I gene among lupus patients: an Argentine multicenter study. Acta Reumatologica Portuguesa 41, 138-144 Google Scholar
143. Gajic-Veljic, M. et al. (2015) Importance of low serum DNase I activity and polyspecific anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies in propylthiouracil-induced lupus-like syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 54, 2061-2070 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
144. Leffler, J. et al. (2012) Neutrophil extracellular traps that are not degraded in systemic lupus erythematosus activate complement exacerbating the disease. Journal of Immunology 188, 3522-3531 Google Scholar
145. Carmona-Rivera, C. et al. (2014) Neutrophil extracellular traps induce endothelial dysfunction in systemic lupus erythematosus through the activation of matrix metalloproteinase-2. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 74, 1417-1424 Google Scholar
146. Fenton, K. (2014) The effect of cell death in the initiation of lupus nephritis. Clinical and Experimental Immunology 179, 11-16 Google Scholar
147. Wang, H. et al. (2015) Neutrophil extracellular trap mitochondrial DNA and its autoantibody in systemic lupus erythematosus and a proof-of-concept trial of metformin. Arthritis and Rheumatology 67, 3190-3200 Google Scholar
148. Verthelyi, D. et al. (1998) DNAse treatment does not improve the survival of lupus prone (NZB x NZW)F1 mice. Lupus 7, 223-230 Google Scholar
149. Davis, J.C. Jr et al. (1999) Recombinant human Dnase I (rhDNase) in patients with lupus nephritis. Lupus 8, 68-76 Google Scholar
150. Ahn, J., Ruiz, P. and Barber, G.N. (2014) Intrinsic self-DNA triggers inflammatory disease dependent on STING. Journal of Immunology 193, 4634-4642 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
151. Lapponi, M.J. et al. (2013) Regulation of neutrophil extracellular trap formation by anti-inflammatory drugs. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 345, 430-437 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
152. Peer, V. et al. (2016) Renoprotective effects of DNAse-I treatment in a rat model of ischemia/reperfusion-induced acute kidney injury. American Journal of Nephrology 43, 195-205 Google Scholar
153. Bakker, P.J. et al. (2015) TLR9 mediates remote liver injury following severe renal ischemia reperfusion. PLoS ONE 10, e0137511 Google Scholar
154. Jansen, M.P.B. et al. (2017) Mitochondrial DNA is released in urine of sirs patients with acute kidney injury and correlates with severity of renal dysfunction. Shock 2017 Aug 23. doi: 10.1097/SHK.0000000000000967. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
155. Tsuji, N. et al. (2016) Role of mitochondrial DNA in septic AKI via toll-like receptor 9. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 27, 2009-2020 Google Scholar
156. Atamaniuk, J. et al. (2006) Cell-free plasma DNA: a marker for apoptosis during hemodialysis. Clinical Chemistry 52, 523-526 Google Scholar
157. Cichota, L.C. et al. (2015) Circulating double-stranded DNA in plasma of hemodialysis patients and its association with iron stores. Clinical Laboratory 61, 985-990 Google Scholar
158. Opatrna, S. et al. (2009) Cell-free plasma DNA during hemodialysis. Renal Failure 31, 475-480 Google Scholar
159. Ozkaya, O. et al. (2009) Plasma cell-free DNA levels in children on peritoneal dialysis. Nephron. Clinical Practice 113, c258c261 Google Scholar
160. Pajek, J. et al. (2010) Cell-free DNA in the peritoneal effluent of peritoneal dialysis solutions. Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis 14, 20-26 Google Scholar
161. Virzi, G.M. et al. (2016) Peritoneal cell-free DNA: an innovative method for determining acute cell damage in peritoneal membrane and for monitoring the recovery process after peritonitis. Journal of Nephrology 29, 111-118 Google Scholar
162. Korabecna, M. et al. (2012) Alterations in methylation status of immune response genes promoters in cell-free DNA during a hemodialysis procedure. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 12(Suppl 1), S27S33 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
163. Tovbin, D. et al. (2012) Circulating cell-free DNA in hemodialysis patients predicts mortality. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 27, 3929-3935 Google Scholar
164. Szeto, C.C. et al. (2016) Plasma mitochondrial DNA level is a prognostic marker in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney & Blood Pressure Research 41, 402-412 Google Scholar
165. Garcia-Olmo, D. and Garcia-Olmo, D.C. (2001) Functionality of circulating DNA: the hypothesis of genometastasis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 945, 265-275 Google Scholar
166. Garcia-Olmo, D.C. et al. (2008) Release of cell-free DNA into the bloodstream leads to high levels of non-tumor plasma DNA during tumor progression in rats. Cancer Letters 272, 133-140 Google Scholar
167. Garcia-Olmo, D.C. et al. (2013) Quantitation of cell-free DNA and RNA in plasma during tumor progression in rats. Molecular Cancer 12, 8 Google Scholar
168. Garcia-Olmo, D. et al. (1999) Tumor DNA circulating in the plasma might play a role in metastasis. The hypothesis of the genometastasis. Histology and Histopathology 14, 1159-1164 Google Scholar
169. Simsekyilmaz, S. et al. (2014) Role of extracellular RNA in atherosclerotic plaque formation in mice. Circulation 129, 598-606 Google Scholar
170. Fischer, S. et al. (2014) Impact of extracellular RNA on endothelial barrier function. Cell & Tissue Research 355, 635-645 Google Scholar
171. Jylhava, J. et al. (2013) Characterization of the role of distinct plasma cell-free DNA species in age-associated inflammation and frailty. Aging Cell 12, 388-397 Google Scholar
172. Atamaniuk, J. et al. (2012) Apoptotic cell-free DNA promotes inflammation in haemodialysis patients. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 27, 902-905 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
173. Muzes, G. et al. (2014) Preconditioning with intravenous colitic cell-free DNA prevents DSS-colitis by altering TLR9-associated gene expression profile. Digestive Diseases and Sciences 59, 2935-2946 Google Scholar
174. Li, X. et al. (2015) Extracellular, but not intracellular HMGB1, facilitates self-DNA induced macrophage activation via promoting DNA accumulation in endosomes and contributes to the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis. Molecular Immunology 65, 177-188 Google Scholar
175. Yusof, F. et al. (2015) Effects of nephrolithiasis on serum DNase (deoxyribonuclease I and II) activity and E3 SUMO-protein ligase NSE2 (NSMCE2) in Malaysian individuals. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 28, 660-665 Google Scholar
176. Jorgez, C.J. et al. (2006) Quantity versus quality: optimal methods for cell-free DNA isolation from plasma of pregnant women. Genetics in Medicine 8, 615-619 Google Scholar
177. Kirsch, C. et al. (2008) An improved method for the isolation of free-circulating plasma DNA and cell-free DNA from other body fluids. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1137, 135-139 Google Scholar
178. Xue, X. et al. (2009) Optimizing the yield and utility of circulating cell-free DNA from plasma and serum. Clinica Chimica Acta 404, 100-104 Google Scholar
179. Sharma, V.K., Vouros, P. and Glick, J. (2011) Mass spectrometric based analysis, characterization and applications of circulating cell free DNA isolated from human body fluids. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 304, 172-183 Google Scholar
180. Breitbach, S. et al. (2014) Direct measurement of cell-free DNA from serially collected capillary plasma during incremental exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology (1985) 117, 119-130 Google Scholar
181. Hibi, K. et al. (1998) Molecular detection of genetic alterations in the serum of colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Research 58, 1405-1407 Google Scholar
182. Jung, M. et al. (2017) Bisulfite conversion of DNA from tissues, cell lines, buffy coat, FFPE tissues, microdissected cells, swabs, sputum, aspirates, lavages, effusions, plasma, serum, and urine. Methods in Molecular Biology 1589, 139-159 Google Scholar
183. Huang, D.J. et al. (2008) Isolation of cell-free DNA from maternal plasma using manual and automated systems. Methods in Molecular Biology 444, 203-208 Google Scholar
184. Page, K. et al. (2006) The importance of careful blood processing in isolation of cell-free DNA. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1075, 313-317 Google Scholar
185. Fernando, M.R. et al. (2012) Stabilization of cell-free RNA in blood samples using a new collection device. Clinical Biochemistry 45, 1497-1502 Google Scholar
186. Hidestrand, M. et al. (2012) Influence of temperature during transportation on cell-free DNA analysis. Fetal Diagnosis and Therapy 31, 122-128 Google Scholar
187. Norton, S.E. et al. (2013) A stabilizing reagent prevents cell-free DNA contamination by cellular DNA in plasma during blood sample storage and shipping as determined by digital PCR. Clinical Biochemistry 46, 1561-1565 Google Scholar
188. Qin, J., Williams, T.L. and Fernando, M.R. (2013) A novel blood collection device stabilizes cell-free RNA in blood during sample shipping and storage. BMC Research Notes 6, 380 Google Scholar
189. El Messaoudi, S. et al. (2013) Circulating cell free DNA: preanalytical considerations. Clinica Chimica Acta 424, 222-230 Google Scholar
190. Koide, K. et al. (2005) Fragmentation of cell-free fetal DNA in plasma and urine of pregnant women. Prenatal Diagnosis 25, 604-607 Google Scholar
191. Goldshtein, H., Hausmann, M.J. and Douvdevani, A. (2009) A rapid direct fluorescent assay for cell-free DNA quantification in biological fluids. Annals of Clinical Biochemistry 46(Pt 6), 488-494 Google Scholar
192. Devonshire, A.S. et al. (2014) Towards standardisation of cell-free DNA measurement in plasma: controls for extraction efficiency, fragment size bias and quantification. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 406, 6499-6512 Google Scholar
193. Kraaij, T. et al. (2016) A novel method for high-throughput detection and quantification of neutrophil extracellular traps reveals ROS-independent NET release with immune complexes. Autoimmunity Reviews 15, 577-584 Google Scholar
194. Zhong, X.Y. et al. (2007) Is the quantity of circulatory cell-free DNA in human plasma and serum samples associated with gender, age and frequency of blood donations? Annals of Hematology 86, 139-143 Google Scholar
195. Polcher, M. et al. (2010) Impact of the menstrual cycle on circulating cell-free DNA. Anticancer Research 30, 2235-2240 Google Scholar
196. Jylhava, J. et al. (2011) Aging is associated with quantitative and qualitative changes in circulating cell-free DNA: the vitality 90+ study. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development 132, 20-26 Google Scholar
197. Urato, A.C. et al. (2008) Smoking in pregnancy is associated with increased total maternal serum cell-free DNA levels. Prenatal Diagnosis 28, 186-190 Google Scholar
198. Atamaniuk, J. et al. (2010) Cell-free plasma DNA and purine nucleotide degradation markers following weightlifting exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology 110, 695-701 Google Scholar
199. Beiter, T. et al. (2011) Short-term treadmill running as a model for studying cell-free DNA kinetics in vivo. Clinical Chemistry 57, 633-636 Google Scholar
200. Peters, D.L. and Pretorius, P.J. (2012) Continuous adaptation through genetic communication – a putative role for cell-free DNA. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 12(Suppl 1), S127S132 Google Scholar
201. Vlkova, B. et al. (2010) Circulating free fetal nucleic acids in maternal plasma and preeclampsia. Medical Hypotheses 74, 1030-1032 Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Sources of cfDNA in blood and urine. Plasma cfDNA is mostly derived from blood cells. An alternative source are tissue cells, fat cells, especially in obese patients, tumour cells in the patients with solid tumours and placental cells in pregnant women. The main mechanisms involved in the release of cfDNA include apoptosis, necrosis and netosis. Urine contains cfDNA derived from plasma.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Kidney injury and cfDNA. CfDNA from tumours can be detected in the plasma and urine of patients with renal cell carcinoma. During the kidney injury, a larger amount of mitochondrial cfDNA and fragmented cfDNA is present in the urine. The plasma cfDNA and transrenal urinary cfDNA (i.e. plasma-derived), can be analysed using real-time PCR and sequencing for screening, diagnosis and monitoring of disease progression.