ArticleNAR genomics and bioinformatics2025
Cell-free DNA as a potential alternative to genomic DNA in genetic studies.
Article in NAR genomics and bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering Teochew population's genetic protective barrier: Apolipoprotein E- lipoprotein(a) kringle IV type 2 synergy as novel cardioprotective pathway.World journal of cardiology · 2026Article
- Application of a modified MSRE-qPCR method for detecting circulating cell-free DNA methylation in cervical cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing has greatly advanced genomics, enabling large-scale studies of population genetics and complex traits. Genomic DNA (gDNA) from white blood cells has traditionally been the main data source, but cell-free DNA (cfDNA), found in bodily fluids as fragmented DNA, is increasingly recognized as a valuable biomarker in clinical and genetic studies. However, a direct comparison between cfDNA and gDNA has not been fully explored. In this study, we analyzed cfDNA and gDNA from 186 healthy individuals, using the same sequencing platform. We compared sequencing quality, variant detection, allele frequencies (AF), genotype concordance, population structure, and genomic association results (genome-wide association study and expression quantitative trait locus). While cfDNA showed higher duplication rates and lower effective sequencing depth, both DNA types displayed similar quality metrics at the same depth. We also observed that significant depth differences between cfDNA and gDNA were mainly found in centromeric regions. While gDNA identified more variants with more uniform coverage, AF spectra, population structure, and genomic associations were largely consistent between the two DNA types. This study provides a detailed comparison of cfDNA and gDNA, highlighting the potential of cfDNA as an alternative to gDNA in genomic research. Our findings could serve as a reference for future studies on cfDNA and gDNA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.