Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 26;16(4):e0250561. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250561

Total and endothelial cell-derived cell-free DNA in blood plasma does not change during menstruation

Nicole Laurencia Yuwono 1, Claire Elizabeth Henry 1, Caroline Elizabeth Ford 1, Kristina Warton 1,*
Editor: Francesco Bertolini2
PMCID: PMC8075187  PMID: 33901234

Abstract

Assays measuring cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood have widespread potential in modern medicine. However, a comprehensive understanding of cfDNA dynamics in healthy individuals is required to assist in the design of assays that maximise the signal driven by pathological changes, while excluding fluctuations that are part of healthy physiological processes. The menstrual cycle involves major remodelling of endometrial tissue and associated apoptosis, yet there has been little investigation of the impact of the menstrual cycle on cfDNA levels. Paired plasma samples were collected from 40 healthy women on menstruating (M) and non-menstruating (NM) days of their cycle. We measured total cfDNA by targeting ALU repetitive sequences and measured endothelial-derived cfDNA by methylation-specific qPCR targeting an endothelium-unique unmethylated CDH5 DNA region. CfDNA integrity and endothelial cfDNA concentration, but not total cfDNA, are consistent across time between NM and M. No significant changes in total (ALU-115 p = 0.273; ALU-247 p = 0.385) or endothelial cell specific (p = 0.301) cfDNA were observed, leading to the conclusion that menstrual status at the time of diagnostic blood collection should not have a significant impact on the quantitation of total cfDNA and methylation-based cancer assays.

Introduction

Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood is a promising source of biomarkers for a range of conditions such as cancer detection and transplantation [1]. It is generally accepted that cfDNA is released into the blood due to cells dying via apoptosis and is also linked to inflammation [2]. cfDNA can be released into the blood in healthy individuals, patients with benign diseases and patients with cancer, and therefore it is important to distinguish between amounts of cfDNA from different cells of origin when developing cfDNA based biomarkers. For example there is a rise in pancreatic acinar and ductal cells-derived cfDNA in pancreatic cancer and pancreatic β-cell cfDNA in diabetes [3] as well as erythroid cfDNA in anaemia [4]. In healthy individuals, cfDNA has been shown to be predominantly of leukocyte origin however, other tissues such as the liver can also contribute to the cfDNA pool [57]. Furthermore, levels of cfDNA fluctuate several-fold during exercise [810] but not as part of circadian rhythm [11, 12]. A comprehensive understanding of cfDNA dynamics in healthy individuals will allow the design of assays that maximise the signal driven by pathological changes, while excluding fluctuations that are part of healthy physiological processes.

Despite the fact that women comprise 50% of the population and most undergo active menstruation generally between the years ~12–50, there has been little investigation of the impact of the menstrual cycle on cfDNA levels. The menstrual cycle involves major remodelling of endometrial tissue. During the follicular phase, stroma, glands and spiral arteries proliferate in the outer functional layer of the endometrium, thickening it from approximately 5.4 mm to 9.2 mm [13]. Without fertilisation and implantation of the ovum, this is eventually followed by menstruation [14], characterised by disintegration of the outer endometrial epithelium layer via apoptosis, fragmentation of glands and loss of adhesion molecules [1518]. Associated with this is extensive angiogenesis that occurs in the basal endothelium for vascular bed repair [19] as well as inflammation [20]. Leukocytes are known to increase in number and contribute to matrixmetalloproteinases that break down the endometrium [21].

Given the inflammation, apoptosis and the consequential dramatic changes in tissue volume and architecture, we anticipated that during menstruation there would be an increase in total cfDNA, as well as an increase in cfDNA derived from endothelial cells lining the blood vessels within the endometrium. Two previous studies have examined whether cfDNA levels are altered during menstruation, however both studies used serum rather than plasma as the substrate [22, 23]. The majority of cfDNA in serum is derived from leukocytes that lyse during clotting [24, 25], thus serum cfDNA levels do not reflect physiological levels in blood and are highly dependent on sample processing time. To eliminate the possibility that changes in cfDNA were obscured in previous studies by sample artefacts related to serum processing, we quantitated cfDNA fluctuations during the menstrual cycle using plasma samples and with tightly controlled processing protocols.

We also examined whether there was a change in the proportion of the different cell types that contribute to the cfDNA pool during menstruation, specifically, whether there is an increase in endothelial cell-derived cfDNA. Endothelial cells internally line the blood vessels in the body, and are in continuous contact with blood [26]. Despite the large interface between blood and endothelium, initial work suggested that cfDNA from endothelial cells is not present in blood plasma [27]. However, this negative result, based on PCR detection of endothelial-specific unmethylated DNA E-selectin region, was due to the primers used spanning the transcription start site (TSS) of E-selectin. It is now accepted that the TSS of actively transcribed genes is not preserved in cfDNA because it is lacking in nucleosomes that protect it from degradation [28]. Recent work using Illumina methylation profiling showed that endothelial cell DNA actually comprises around 9% of the total cfDNA pool [5]. We utilised the principle of tissue-specific methylation to quantify cfDNA derived from endothelial cells and measure whether it was altered during menstruation. An observed increase would show that menstruation alters the pattern of tissues that contribute to the cfDNA pool in healthy women, which may in turn impact methylation-based diagnostic assays.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval and participant recruitment

The recruitment of healthy female volunteers and blood collection was approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics committee (HC17020). Volunteers were invited to participate via flyers seeking healthy voluneteer blood donors distributed within the University of New South Wales. Researchers were contacted by participants at which point screening occurred by the exclusion criteria which were pregnancy, lactation, and personal history of cancer. At the scheduled meeting time, which was within working hours, all participants were informed of the study design, written consent was obtained, and blood was collected in a dedicated venpuncture room.

Participant cohort

Venous blood was collected from each of 40 women twice, once at menstruating (M) and once at non-menstruating (NM) phases of their cycle. Collection began in April 2018 and ceased September 2018. NM samples included both follicular and luteal phases of the cycle. Menstruation status was self-reported and M-phase blood was collected 1 or 2 days after the start of menstruation, when endometrial shedding is profuse. 80% of the sample pairs were collected within the interval of a single menstrual cycle, and no collections were more than three cycles apart (S1 Table). The shortest and longest interval between the NM and M samples from each participant was 7 days and 78 days, respectively. The age range of the participants was between 21 and 49 (median: 29.5, average: 30) years old. The majority of women (33/40) fell within normal body mass index (BMI) range while 2/40 were underweight and 5/40 were overweight. Additionally, 38/40 were non-smokers while 1/40 was a social, on-off smoker for 6 years and 1/40 was a regular smoker for 3 years (S1 Table). Both smoked on average 1 cigarette per day.

Blood collection

80 mL of peripheral blood was drawn into 8 x 10 mL K2EDTA collection tubes (Becton Dickinson) and processed within 3 hours of collection. The blood was centrifuged at 2500 xg for 10 minutes at 4°C, then the plasma was transferred into a new tube and re-centrifuged at 3500 xg for 10 minutes at 4°C to remove residual contaminating cells. Plasma was stored at -80°C until cfDNA extraction.

CfDNA extraction and quantification

A total of 80 cfDNA samples were extracted from 5 mL plasma, with 1 μg carrier RNA, using QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (QIAGEN) as per manufacturer’s instructions and eluted in 30 μL of elution buffer. Total cfDNA was quantified using qPCR targeting an ALU repetitive sequence, amplifying a 115 bp product (Forward 5’-CCTGAGGTCAGGAGTTCGAG-3’; Reverse 5’-CCCGAGTAGCTGGGATTACA-3’) (henceforth denoted as ALU-115) as well as a 247 bp product (Forward 5’-GTGGCTCACGCCTGTTAATC-3’; Reverse 5’-CAGGCTGGAGTGCAGTGG-3’) (henceforth denoted as ALU-247). Serially diluted (1 in 5) commercial human genomic DNA purified from buffy coat (Roche) was used as the standard curve. Each 20 μL PCR reaction contained: 0.01 μL of the eluted cfDNA (1.66 μL of plasma equivalent), 1X PCR Reaction Buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 0.2 mM dNTP Solution Mix (New England Biolabs), 0.06 U/μL Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 2.5 μM Syto 9 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 3 mM MgCl2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and 0.2 μM each ALU forward and reverse primers (Sigma-Aldrich). The qPCR started with 95°C for 10 min then for 45 cycles, 95°C for 30s, 60°C for 30s and 72°C for 30s (Thermo Fisher Scientific QuantStudio ViiA 7 Real-Time System). Quantification of total cfDNA was expressed as ng of cfDNA per 1 mL of plasma. The integrity of cfDNA indicated by the ratio of short to long fragments of ALU was quantified by:

RatioofALU:CfDNAconcentration(ALU115)CfDNAconcentration(ALU247)

Positive and negative controls for methylation specific qPCR

The in-vitro Human Methylated and Non-methylated DNA Set (Zymo Research) was used to establish the qPCR conditions that selectively amplified unmethylated CDH5 DNA. Human primary aortic endothelial cells and the hCMEC/D3 blood-brain barrier endothelial cell line (Millipore) were used as positive controls to test the sensitivity and specificity of the unmethylated CDH5 region qPCR primers on biological samples. Cell line and primary cell genomic DNA was extracted using the ‘Cultured Cells’ protocol of the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAGEN) as per manufacturer’s instructions. Genomic DNA was eluted in 40 μL and quantified using nanodrop prior to bisulfite conversion.

Bisulfite conversion

Bisulfite conversion was performed with Epitect Bisulfite Kit (Qiagen) as per manufacturer’s instructions, without carrier RNA. 24 μL cfDNA elution (equivalent to 4 ml of plasma) of the NM and M matched samples was converted using the “Fragmented DNA” protocol and eluted in 30 μL. 1 μg of the in-vitro unmethylated and methylated human DNA set, 500 ng human primary aortic genomic DNA (HPA gDNA), and 500 ng blood brain barrier endothelial genomic DNA (BBB gDNA) were all converted using the genomic DNA protocol and eluted in 50 μL each.

Methylation specific CDH5 primer design and selection

The human genome CDH5 region, encoding VE-cadherin, was selected from the literature as specifically unmethylated in endothelial cells [29]. Primers were designed to selectively amplify unmethylated sequences, with the segment 150 bp upstream to 100 bp downstream of TSS excluded to avoid the nucleosome depleted region. The amplified product was also restricted to less than 100 bp in length to maximise assay sensitivity in cfDNA samples. The resulting primer sequences are Forward 5’-TGTGTTTAAGATGGGAGGGTTT-3’; Reverse 5’-AACCCAACATACCCTCAAAAA -3’ and produce a 96 bp size amplicon. Bisulfite converted in-vitro human unmethylated (1 ng per reaction) and methylated (1 ng per reaction) genomic DNA was used in a qPCR with varying MgCl2 and temperatures to select optimised conditions that selectively amplify unmethylated DNA, while specifically not amplifying methylated DNA.

Endothelial cfDNA quantification

Endothelial-derived cfDNA was quantified using the methylation status-specific CDH5 qPCR primers described above against a standard curve generated with bisulfite converted in-vitro unmethylated human DNA (Zymo Research) serially diluted 1 in 2. The 20 μL PCR reaction contained: 5 μL of the eluted bisulfite-converted cfDNA (0.667 mL of plasma equivalent), 1X PCR Reaction Buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 0.2 mM dNTP Solution Mix (New England Biolabs), 0.15 U/μL Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 2.5 μM Syto 9 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), 2.5 mM MgCl2 (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and 0.2 μM CDH5 forward and reverse each (Sigma-Aldrich). The qPCR started with 95°C for 3 min then for 45 cycles, 95°C for 10s, 62°C for 20s and 72°C for 30s (Thermo Fisher Scientific QuantStudio ViiA 7 Real-Time System). The quantification was expressed as ng of endothelial cfDNA per 1 mL of plasma. The relative proportion of the endothelial cfDNA to total cfDNA amount was calculated by:

Relativeproportion:EndothelialcfDNAamount(ngper1mLplasma)TotalcfDNAamount(ngper1mLplasma)

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out with GraphPad Prism (version 8.4.3). Data are presented as mean with standard deviation. To compare between NM and M samples in total cfDNA, endothelial cfDNA, size ratio, and endothelial cfDNA as a proportion of the total cfDNA, paired, one-tailed, parametric t-test was used. All correlation data used one-tailed Pearson’s correlation test. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Total cfDNA levels are unaltered by menstruation status

We used qPCR to measure plasma cfDNA levels in matched blood samples from women at M and NM phases of the menstrual cycle. ALU-115 was used to measure total cfDNA, while ALU-247 was used to measure long DNA fragments. We observed no statistically significant difference in the concentration of total cfDNA in both ALU-115 (NM average = 1.79 ± 0.96 ng/mL plasma; M average = 1.68 ± 0.88 ng/mL plasma) and ALU-247 (NM average = 0.66 ± 0.37 ng/mL plasma; M average = 0.64 ± 0.34 ng/mL plasma) at the two phases of the cycle (Fig 1A). CfDNA levels fluctuated up to 7.7-fold between the NM and M blood draws, and we found little to no correlation in cfDNA concentration between the two phases as measured with either ALU-115 or ALU-247 (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Total cfDNA does not increase during menstruation.

Fig 1

(A) Total cfDNA quantification in 40 healthy women at NM and M phases by qPCR, expressed in ng of cfDNA per 1 mL of plasma (ALU-115 p = 0.273; ALU-247 p = 0.385). (B) Scatter plot of NM ALU-115 and M ALU-115 (r = 0.262; p = 0.0516) as well as NM ALU-247 and M ALU-247 (r = 0.333; p = 0.0179).

We used the ratio of the ALU-115 and ALU-247 concentration as an indicator of cfDNA size distribution and integrity and found that this also did not change between NM (average = 2.84 ± 0.85) and M (average = 2.69 ± 0.56) phases of the cycle (Fig 2A). Interestingly, we did observe a positive correlation between the cfDNA size ratio of M and NM samples, showing that the integrity of cfDNA is more consistent across time than concentration (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Integrity of cfDNA does not change during menstruation.

Fig 2

(A) CfDNA integrity assessed via the ALU-115/ALU-247 size ratio in 40 healthy women at NM and M phases (p = 0.0931). (B) Scatter plot of size ratio at NM and M phases (r = 0.548; p = 0.0001).

Endothelial specific DNA primer design and validation

The CDH5 region downstream of the TSS was found to be suitable for unmethylated DNA-specific primer design. The primers contain a total of 4 mismatches between methylated and unmethylated bisulfite-converted DNA (S1A Fig). With the same amount of bisulfite-converted genomic DNA input (1 ng), the primer was able to selectively amplify the in-vitro unmethylated genomic DNA but not the methylated genomic DNA, which performed the same as the no template control (NTC) (S1B–S1C Fig). The primer was further validated by amplifying serially diluted bisulfite-converted HPA gDNA and BBB gDNA. The lower limit of detection was 111 pg and 125 pg in HPA and BBB dilutions, respectively (S2 Fig).

Endothelial cell-derived cfDNA levels are unaltered by menstruation status

While we did observe considerable increases or decreases in individual matched samples, the direction of the change was not consistent across the whole cohort and, like the total cfDNA, no overall change in average endothelial-derived cfDNA concentration was observed at NM (average: 1.01 ± 0.57 ng/mL plasma) compared to M phases (average: 1.07 ± 0.57 ng/mL plasma) in 40 matched samples (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. Endothelial cell-derived cfDNA does not increase during menstruation.

Fig 3

(A) Measurement of endothelial cfDNA quantification by qPCR in 40 healthy women at NM and M phases, expressed in ng of cfDNA per 1 mL of plasma (p = 0.301). (B) Box plot graph showing the proportion of endothelial cfDNA compared to total cfDNA at NM and M phases (p = 0.3686). (C) Scatter plot of endothelial cfDNA at NM and M phases (r = 0.4008; p = 0.0052).

Similarly, no significant difference was observed when the concentration was adjusted against the total cfDNA ALU-115 concentration to express endothelial cfDNA relative to the total (Fig 3B). There was a statistically significant (p = 0.0052) positive correlation in endothelial cfDNA between the NM and M phases, showing that the proportion of endothelial cfDNA, is consistent across time (Fig 3C).

Discussion

We compared a range of cfDNA parameters in matched plasma samples from women at menstruating and non-menstruating phases of their cycle. Specifically, we measured total cfDNA concentration and size integrity, and the relative amount of cfDNA contributed by endothelial cells.

With 40 pairs of matched samples, our study has 90% power to detect a 30% increase, and >95% power to detect an increase of 35% and over. We found no change in total cfDNA concentration during menstruation, and no change in the size distribution as measured by the ratio of two different amplicon sizes, ALU-115 and ALU-247. The ALU-247 concentration magnitude was less than the ALU-115, as expected since this amplicon is too long to detect the shorter cfDNA population. We also found no change in the endothelial-derived cfDNA, for both amount and when expressed relative to the total.

The ladder pattern of cfDNA when subjected to gel electrophoresis has prompted the hypothesis that this DNA is derived from apoptotic cells and enters the blood stream as debris that has bypassed macrophage clean-up mechanisms [30]. In this scenario, we would expect menstruation to raise cfDNA levels, as it is a process that involves extensive apoptosis and tissue remodelling [1618]. The lack of increase we observed suggests that menstruation involves uniquely efficient removal of apoptotic cells, possibly aided by the fact that tissue breakdown products can be shed into the uterine cavity during menses [23]. An alternative explanation is that in healthy individuals apoptotic debris is always very efficiently removed, and specific processes unrelated to apoptosis, for example erythrocyte enucleation [4, 5] and NETosis [31], are responsible for the bulk of cfDNA. The latter is consistent with erythrocyte progenitors having been shown to contribute approximately 27–30% of the cfDNA total [4, 5], with granulocytes, which are potentially linked to NETosis [31], contributing another 32% [5]. If apoptosis is not the main source of cfDNA from healthy cells, it may account for the different size distributions of tumour and healthy cfDNA that have been reported [32], as the two would be released by different pathways.

It is also possible that we did not observe an increase in cfDNA because menstruation leads to DNA fragmentation to a size that cannot be amplified by the ALU-115 and the endothelial cell specific primers, which create 115 bp and 96 bp products respectively. It has been reported that cancer [33], graft transplants [34], stroke [35] as well as non-disease settings, such as pregnancy [36, 37], can lead to more pronounced fragmentation of cfDNA. In the cancer context, this fragmentation can shorten cfDNA, compared to healthy controls, in both total cfDNA pool [3840] and in tumour-specific fragments, from ≥100 bp down to 57–85 bp [32, 4143].

In contrast to the variation in total cfDNA and endothelial cfDNA concentrations, we observed some consistency in cfDNA size ratios, and in endothelial cfDNA between M and NM phase samples (r = 0.548, p = 0.0001 and r = 0.4008, p = 0.0052, respectively). This suggests that the cleavage rates and cell-sources of cfDNA within healthy individuals are somewhat constant over time, and less susceptible to physiological fluctuations.

An association between endothelial cells and circulating nucleic acids is not novel. The presence of endothelial cell mRNA is significantly increased along with total cfDNA in burn patients [44]. This cfDNA elevation is also observed in major trauma [45] and cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass patients [46] with a positive correlation with endothelial damage-specific markers.

A limitation of this study is that non-menstruating samples were not differentiated between ovulation, luteal and follicular phases. It is possible that these influence cfDNA levels, however, our hypothesis was that the changes that occur during menstruation will increase cfDNA levels, and this was not supported by the data. Measuring changes during non-menstruating phases was beyond our scope to of our study. Furthermore, we did not exclude women with current use of oral contraceptive, and while we do not anticipate a cofounding effect from this, this has yet to be investigated in the literature.

Although in our cohort we did not observe cfDNA changes relating to menstrual status, individual cfDNA levels did fluctuate over time. We found up to 7.7-fold variation within a single individual, and no correlation between the two consecutive measurements across the whole cohort. CfDNA levels are known to be increased by exercise [47], and it is possible that different levels of physical activity prior to blood donation contributed to the variation we observed. However, low intensity exercise is not sufficient to measurably change concentration [48], and even following intense exercise cfDNA has been reported to return to baseline within about 1 hour [10, 49, 50], so this is not likely to account for all the changes. However, based on published literature we do note that the vast majority of research into cfDNA and exercise has been conducted on men and therefore mechanisms of cfDNA release and absorption unique to women may be unidentified [51]. Our data highlight the lack of knowledge of factors that drive cfDNA fluctuations in healthy individuals.

Conclusion

Menstruation has little impact on the amount, size distribution and cell type contributions of cfDNA in blood plasma, suggesting that highly efficient clearance mechanisms operate during endometrial tissue remodelling. In the context of cfDNA biomarker development and cancer screening tests, menstrual status at the time of diagnostic blood collection should not impact on quantity of total cfDNA obtained. However, more research is required into cfDNA release and absorption in healthy individuals.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Demographic of 40 healthy female volunteers.

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. CHD5 primers are specific for unmethylated DNA.

(A) A schematic of primer location in the CDH5 region spanning from +122 bp to +218 bp. CpG mismatches are shown as •. The arrows indicate forward and reverse primers. qPCR amplification (B) and melt curve (C) plot of CDH5 primer selectivity and specificity in 1 ng of in-vitro unmethylated (green) and methylated DNA (red) set with NTC (black) as control.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Reproducible quantification of unmethylated CDH5 in human primary endothelial cells.

qPCR amplification plot of CDH5 in (A) human aortic endothelial cells (3 ng and 111 pg) and (B) blood brain barrier endothelial cells (2 ng and 125 pg) as primer validation.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank the volunteers for their blood donation. Furthermore, we thank Dr. Rob Rapkins, Dr. Lindsay Wu and Catherine Li for providing the primary endothelial cells as well as Dr. Nancy Briggs for performing the power calculation and verifying the statistics.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Funding have been received from The Department of Education, Skills and Employment (NLY) (https://www.education.gov.au/research-training-program), Beth Yarrow Memorial Award in Medical Science (NLY) (https://wch.med.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/UNSW%20Beth%20Yarrow%20Memorial%20Award%20in%20Medical%20Science%20-%20Guidelines_v1%2028FEB2019.pdf), Translational Cancer Research Network supported by the Cancer Institute NSW (NLY) (http://www.tcrn.unsw.edu.au/tcrn-grants), GO Research Fund (CEH), Ovarian Cancer Research Foundation (KW) (GA-2018-14) (https://www.ocrf.com.au/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sherwood K, Weimer ET. Characteristics, properties, and potential applications of circulating cell-free dna in clinical diagnostics: a focus on transplantation. J Immunol Methods. 2018;463:27–38. 10.1016/j.jim.2018.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.van der Meer AJ, Kroeze A, Hoogendijk AJ, Soussan AA, Ellen van der Schoot C, Wuillemin WA, et al. Systemic inflammation induces release of cell-free DNA from hematopoietic and parenchymal cells in mice and humans. Blood Adv. 2019;3(5):724–8. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018018895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lehmann-Werman R, Neiman D, Zemmour H, Moss J, Magenheim J, Vaknin-Dembinsky A, et al. Identification of tissue-specific cell death using methylation patterns of circulating DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113. 10.1073/pnas.1618558114 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lam WKJ, Gai W, Sun K, Wong RSM, Chan RWY, Jiang P, et al. DNA of Erythroid Origin is Present in Human Plasma and Informs the Types of Anemia. Clinical chemistry. 2017. 10.1373/clinchem.2017.272401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Moss J, Magenheim J, Neiman D, Zemmour H, Loyfer N, Korach A, et al. Comprehensive human cell-type methylation atlas reveals origins of circulating cell-free DNA in health and disease. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):5068. 10.1038/s41467-018-07466-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sun K, Jiang P, Chan KCA, Wong J, Cheng YKY, Liang RHS, et al. Plasma DNA tissue mapping by genome-wide methylation sequencing for noninvasive prenatal, cancer, and transplantation assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015;112(40):E5503–E12. 10.1073/pnas.1508736112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Liu X, Ren J, Luo N, Guo H, Zheng Y, Li J, et al. Comprehensive DNA methylation analysis of tissue of origin of plasma cell-free DNA by methylated CpG tandem amplification and sequencing (MCTA-Seq). Clin Epigenetics. 2019;11(1):93. 10.1186/s13148-019-0689-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Atamaniuk J, Stuhlmeier KM, Vidotto C, Tschan H, Dossenbach-Glaninger A, Mueller MM. Effects of ultra-marathon on circulating DNA and mRNA expression of pro- and anti-apoptotic genes in mononuclear cells. European journal of applied physiology. 2008;104(4):711–7. 10.1007/s00421-008-0827-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Beiter T, Fragasso A, Hudemann J, Schild M, Steinacker J, Mooren FC, et al. Neutrophils release extracellular DNA traps in response to exercise. Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md: 1985). 2014;117(3):325–33. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00173.2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hummel EM, Hessas E, Muller S, Beiter T, Fisch M, Eibl A, et al. Cell-free DNA release under psychosocial and physical stress conditions. Translational psychiatry. 2018;8(1):236. 10.1038/s41398-018-0264-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Toth K, Patai AV, Kalmar A, Bartak BK, Nagy ZB, Galamb O, et al. Circadian Rhythm of Methylated Septin 9, Cell-Free DNA Amount and Tumor Markers in Colorectal Cancer Patients. Pathology oncology research: POR. 2017;23(3):699–706. 10.1007/s12253-016-0174-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Madsen AT, Hojbjerg JA, Sorensen BS, Winther-Larsen A. Day-to-day and within-day biological variation of cell-free DNA. EBioMedicine. 2019. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Tsuda H, Ito YM, Todo Y, Iba T, Tasaka K, Sutou Y, et al. Measurement of endometrial thickness in premenopausal women in office gynecology. Reproductive medicine and biology. 2017;17(1):29–35. 10.1002/rmb2.12062 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thiyagarajan DK, Jeanmonod R. Physiology, Menstrual Cycle. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wood DH, Levison DA. Atrophy and apoptosis in the cyclical human endometrium. The Journal of Pathology. 1976;119(3):159–66. 10.1002/path.1711190305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kokawa K, Shikone T, Nakano R. Apoptosis in the human uterine endometrium during the menstrual cycle. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 1996;81(11):4144–7. 10.1210/jcem.81.11.8923873 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Armstrong GM, Maybin JA, Murray AA, Nicol M, Walker C, Saunders PTK, et al. Endometrial apoptosis and neutrophil infiltration during menstruation exhibits spatial and temporal dynamics that are recapitulated in a mouse model. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):17416. 10.1038/s41598-017-17565-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tabibzadeh S. The signals and molecular pathways involved in human menstruation, a unique process of tissue destruction and remodelling. Molecular human reproduction. 1996;2(2):77–92. 10.1093/molehr/2.2.77 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Demir R, Yaba A, Huppertz B. Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis in the endometrium during menstrual cycle and implantation. Acta Histochemica. 2010;112(3):203–14. 10.1016/j.acthis.2009.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berbic M, Ng CHM, Fraser IS. Inflammation and endometrial bleeding. Climacteric. 2014;17(sup2):47–53. 10.3109/13697137.2014.963964 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Maybin JA, Critchley HOD. Menstrual physiology: implications for endometrial pathology and beyond. Human reproduction update. 2015;21(6):748–61. 10.1093/humupd/dmv038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pölcher M, Ellinger J, Willems S, El-Maarri O, Höller T, Amann C, et al. Impact of the menstrual cycle on circulating cell-free DNA. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(6):2235–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Greystoke A, Harris G, Jenkins M, Goonetilleke D, Moore D, Lancashire M, et al. Assessment of diurnal changes and confounding factors that affect circulating cell death biomarker levels: a short communication. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis. 2013;84:184–8. 10.1016/j.jpba.2013.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Warton K, Lin V, Navin T, Armstrong NJ, Kaplan W, Ying K, et al. Methylation-capture and Next-Generation Sequencing of free circulating DNA from human plasma. BMC genomics. 2014;15(1):476. 10.1186/1471-2164-15-476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Trigg RM, Martinson LJ, Parpart-Li S, Shaw JA. Factors that influence quality and yield of circulating-free DNA: A systematic review of the methodology literature. Heliyon. 2018;4(7):e00699-e. 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bergmann O, Zdunek S, Felker A, Salehpour M, Alkass K, Bernard S, et al. Dynamics of Cell Generation and Turnover in the Human Heart. Cell. 2015;161(7):1566–75. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jahr S, Hentze H, Englisch S, Hardt D, Fackelmayer FO, Hesch RD. DNA fragments in the blood plasma of cancer patients: quantitations and evidence for their origin from apoptotic and necrotic cells. Cancer research. 2001;61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Snyder MW, Kircher M, Hill AJ, Daza RM, Shendure J. Cell-free DNA Comprises an In Vivo Nucleosome Footprint that Informs Its Tissues-Of-Origin. Cell. 2016;164(1–2):57–68. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shirodkar AV, St. Bernard R, Gavryushova A, Kop A, Knight BJ, Yan MS-C, et al. A mechanistic role for DNA methylation in endothelial cell (EC)-enriched gene expression: relationship with DNA replication timing. Blood. 2013;121(17):3531–40. 10.1182/blood-2013-01-479170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kustanovich A, Schwartz R, Peretz T, Grinshpun A. Life and death of circulating cell-free DNA. Cancer Biol Ther. 2019;20(8):1057–67. 10.1080/15384047.2019.1598759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Goggs R, Jeffery U, LeVine DN, Li RHL. Neutrophil-Extracellular Traps, Cell-Free DNA, and Immunothrombosis in Companion Animals: A Review. Veterinary Pathology. 2020;57(1):6–23. 10.1177/0300985819861721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Liu X, Liu L, Ji Y, Li C, Wei T, Yang X, et al. Enrichment of short mutant cell-free DNA fragments enhanced detection of pancreatic cancer. EBioMedicine. 2019. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.02.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mouliere F, Robert B, Arnau Peyrotte E, Del Rio M, Ychou M, Molina F, et al. High Fragmentation Characterizes Tumour-Derived Circulating DNA. PLoS One. 2011;6(9). 10.1371/journal.pone.0023418 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ng HI, Zhu X, Xuan L, Long Y, Mao Y, Shi Y, et al. Analysis of fragment size distribution of cell-free DNA: A potential non-invasive marker to monitor graft damage in living-related liver transplantation for inborn errors of metabolism. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism. 2019;127(1):45–50. 10.1016/j.ymgme.2019.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cui X, Du S, Liu H, Liu J, Wu Q, Huo Q, et al. The Length and Distribution of Plasma Cell-Free DNA Fragments in Stroke Patients. BioMed Research International. 2020;2020:9054196. 10.1155/2020/9054196 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Qiao L, Yu B, Liang Y, Zhang C, Wu X, Xue Y, et al. Sequencing shorter cfDNA fragments improves the fetal DNA fraction in noninvasive prenatal testing. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019;221(4):345.e1-.e11. 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.05.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xue Y, Zhao G, Qiao L, Lu J, Yu B, Wang T. Sequencing Shorter cfDNA Fragments Decreases the False Negative Rate of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing. Frontiers in genetics. 2020;11:280-. 10.3389/fgene.2020.00280 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lapin M, Oltedal S, Tjensvoll K, Buhl T, Smaaland R, Garresori H, et al. Fragment size and level of cell-free DNA provide prognostic information in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Journal of translational medicine. 2018;16(1):300-. 10.1186/s12967-018-1677-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cristiano S, Leal A, Phallen J, Fiksel J, Adleff V, Bruhm DC, et al. Genome-wide cell-free DNA fragmentation in patients with cancer. Nature. 2019;570(7761):385–9. 10.1038/s41586-019-1272-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Mouliere F, El Messaoudi S, Pang D, Dritschilo A, Thierry AR. Multi-marker analysis of circulating cell-free DNA toward personalized medicine for colorectal cancer. Molecular oncology. 2014;8(5):927–41. 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.02.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mouliere F, El Messaoudi S, Gongora C, Guedj A-S, Robert B, Del Rio M, et al. Circulating Cell-Free DNA from Colorectal Cancer Patients May Reveal High KRAS or BRAF Mutation Load. Translational Oncology. 2013;6(3):319-IN8. 10.1593/tlo.12445 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zvereva M, Roberti G, Durand G, Voegele C, Nguyen MD, Delhomme TM, et al. Circulating tumour-derived KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer cases are predominantly carried by very short fragments of cell-free DNA. EBioMedicine. 2020;55. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.09.042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Raymond CK, Hernandez J, Karr R, Hill K, Li M. Collection of cell-free DNA for genomic analysis of solid tumors in a clinical laboratory setting. PloS one. 2017;12(4):e0176241-e. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Fox A, Gal S, Fisher N, Smythe J, Wainscoat J, Tyler MPH, et al. Quantification of circulating cell-free plasma DNA and endothelial gene RNA in patients with burns and relation to acute thermal injury. Burns. 2008;34(6):809–16. 10.1016/j.burns.2007.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Naumann DN, Hazeldine J, Dinsdale RJ, Bishop JR, Midwinter MJ, Harrison P, et al. Endotheliopathy is associated with higher levels of cell-free DNA following major trauma: A prospective observational study. PLOS ONE. 2017;12(12):e0189870. 10.1371/journal.pone.0189870 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Paunel-Görgülü A, Wacker M, El Aita M, Hassan S, Schlachtenberger G, Deppe A, et al. cfDNA correlates with endothelial damage after cardiac surgery with prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and amplifies NETosis in an intracellular TLR9-independent manner. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1):17421. 10.1038/s41598-017-17561-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vittori LN, Tarozzi A, Latessa PM. Circulating Cell-Free DNA in Physical Activities. Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, NJ). 2019;1909:183–97. 10.1007/978-1-4939-8973-7_14 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Andreatta MV, Curty VM, Coutinho JVS, Santos MAA, Vassallo PF, de Sousa NF, et al. Cell-Free DNA as an Earlier Predictor of Exercise-Induced Performance Decrement Related to Muscle Damage. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2018;13(7):953–6. 10.1123/ijspp.2017-0421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Fatouros IG, Jamurtas AZ, Nikolaidis MG, Destouni A, Michailidis Y, Vrettou C, et al. Time of sampling is crucial for measurement of cell-free plasma DNA following acute aseptic inflammation induced by exercise. Clinical biochemistry. 2010;43(16–17):1368–70. 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2010.08.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Haller N, Tug S, Breitbach S, Jörgensen A, Simon P. Increases in Circulating Cell-Free DNA During Aerobic Running Depend on Intensity and Duration. International journal of sports physiology and performance. 2017;12(4):455–62. 10.1123/ijspp.2015-0540 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hagstrom AD, Yuwono N, Warton K, Ford CE. Sex Bias in Cohorts Included in Sports Medicine Research. Sports Medicine. 2021. 10.1007/s40279-020-01405-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Bertolini

8 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36096

Total and Endothelial Cell-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Blood Plasma Does Not Change During Menstruation

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Warton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE.

First of all, please accept my sincere apologies for the long time required for the review. Finding adequate reviewers was particularly difficoult.

After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process by both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a table of relevant baseline demographics and characteristics c) a description of how participants were recruited, and d) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: KW holds stock in Guardant Health, Exact Sciences and Epigenomics AG. No other authors have competing interests. "

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript technically sounds and the data reported support the central hypothesis. I have absolutely no objections regarding the statistical analysis performed in this article; the data supporting the findings are fully available. I've read the article with attention and one thing that doesn't fully convince me is the number of volunteers enrolled in the study(40). As I said before, the results are clear, but i'd probably use more volunteers in order to obtain stronger evidences.

Reviewer #2: In the presented work, authors investigated modulation of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in blood of 40 healthy women comparing menstruating (M) and non-menstruating (NM) days concluding that there is no difference between these two periods in cfDNA and in endothelial-specific cfDNA.

Investigating the cfDNA in healthy subjects clarly represent a relevant issue to generate new insoight on cfDNA but sample size and sample collection are two critical points. The use of cfDNA, as reported within the manuscript , could be considered as promising tool in biomarker discovery; therefore there are many criticisms to be addressed.

Authors used only 40 healthy subjects, without multiple sample collection during time and only discrimination between M and NM period is not sufficient to support the overall conclusions of the manuscript.

Based on what parameters the enrolled women were considered healthy?

Considering that the menstrual cycle is controlled by hormonal changes and that can be identified a follicular phase, ovulation and luteal phase, have authors considered these 3 phases as possible influencing factors?

Blood sample collection during the NM phase is comparable among the studied subjects?

In addition, authors reported, in table 1S, that some enrolled women were undergoing oral contraceptive therapy (11/40, 27.5%). Can this type of therapy influence cfDNA? Can authors exclude that cfDNA can vary in relation to hormonal fluctuation or oral contraceptive therapy?

Can authors exclude that the absence of differences in cfDNA that have been reported is not related to different timing of blood collection during NM period?

Age of enrolled women is from 21 to 49 years old and considering that biomarkers can be modified/modulated during age, can this large age range influence results? Is it possible that age is a confounding factor? Or can authors exclude this hypothesis?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 26;16(4):e0250561. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250561.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Mar 2021

Dear reviewers,

Re: ‘Total and Endothelial Cell-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Blood Plasma Does Not Change During Menstruation’ (PONE-D-20-36096)

We would like to thank the reviewers for their feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the effort that has been put into its evaluation.

In response to reviewer 1:

Re: I've read the article with attention and one thing that doesn't fully convince me is the number of volunteers enrolled in the study (40). As I said before, the results are clear, but i'd probably use more volunteers in order to obtain stronger evidence.

In view of the feedback from Reviewer 1 on cohort size (also raised by Reviewer 2), we re-visited the statistical power of our study. The numbers reported in our original manuscript (i.e. “greater than 80% power to detect a 40% concentration increase”, p12, lines 302-303), were based on calculations from an initial recruitment target of 36 subjects. This recruitment target was exceeded in our study, as we collected ~10% extra samples in case some were hemolyzed or otherwise unusable, but all plasma samples turned out to be good quality and included in the analysis.

We have updated the text of our manuscript to reflect the actual cohort size and re-calculated power. With the current cohort of 40 paired samples and a standard deviation of 0.63, our study had 80% power to detect a 25% increase, 90% power to detect a 30% increase, and >95% power to detect an increase of 35% and above. We therefore believe our sample size is sufficient to see an increase if the biological phenomenon occurs to an appreciable extent. We have made an amendment in the discussion section based on this (page 12 lines 304 -305).

We agree with the reviewer that a larger sample size would create even stronger confidence in the conclusion of the study.

In response to reviewer 2:

Re: Authors used only 40 healthy subjects, without multiple sample collection during time and only discrimination between M and NM period is not sufficient to support the overall conclusions of the manuscript.

We carried out 2 blood collections from each subject – menstruating and non-menstruating. We agree that this does not address the possibility of cfDNA variation during luteal and follicular phases, and at ovulation. However, given that the most rapid and dramatic structural changes occur in endometrium at menstruation, we focused on this phase for our study, and we limit our conclusion to stating that there was no change in cfDNA during menstruation (line 305-306, page 12 “we found no change in total cfDNA concentration during menstruation”).

Our manuscript does not conclude that there is no change in cfDNA levels between, for example, the luteal and follicular phases, and we have amended our discussion to emphasize that there may still be a differences between luteal, follicular and ovulation phases that our study was not designed to detect (lines 356-362, p14).

With regards to the number of subjects, we note that our study benefited from paired sample analysis, which helped us achieve a power of greater than 95% to detect a 35% increase in cfDNA parameters (please see reply to Reviewer 1 above).

We also note that we did not observe a trend towards change, which lacked only sufficient cohort size to be statistically significant. The values in cfDNA concentration were extremely similar (1.79 ng/mL and 1.68 ng/mL), and it would require a very large number of participants to measure an effect of this size with adequate power. We do feel that this would be a worthwhile undertaking in the context of a much larger study, but is beyond the scope of the current report.

Re: Based on what parameters the enrolled women were considered healthy?

Participants were considered healthy based on self-reporting at the time of recruitment. Upon blood collection, participants were required to fill out a questionnaire in which they had to state any medical history thereby giving them an opportunity to inform the researcher if they have any past or current comorbidities. None of the participants had any existing conditions, including but not limited to cold or flu, at the time of both NM and M phase collection, or any personal history of cancer. We have expanded the description of participant recruitment to provide more information (p5, lines 111-119).

Re: Considering that the menstrual cycle is controlled by hormonal changes and that can be identified a follicular phase, ovulation and luteal phase, have authors considered these 3 phases as possible influencing factors?

Collection in the three phases is a great recommendation and would be an exciting study to do in plasma. We would have liked to collect blood from the luteal and follicular phase, and at ovulation for comparison with cfDNA levels during menstruation, however, this would have involved monitoring the 40 subjects for timing of ovulation. Such a study design would involve an immense amount of tracking as we would need to subject the participants to multiple blood tests to accurately measure the phases. Considering the variability of cycle time in each individual, this would be beyond the scope of our study.

Since our hypothesis was that menstruation, characterized by shedding of endometrial tissue, will cause endothelial cfDNA to be increased, the state of shedding (M) vs non-shedding (NM) was adequate within the context of the question we posed.

We have amended our discussion to incorporate this comment as a limitation on page 14 lines 356 - 362. as follows:

A limitation of this study is that non-menstruating samples were not differentiated between ovulation, luteal and follicular phases. It is possible that these influence cfDNA levels, however, our hypothesis was that the changes that occur during menstruation will increase cfDNA levels, and this was not supported by the data. Measuring changes during non-menstruating phases was beyond our scope to of our study.

Re: Blood sample collection during the NM phase is comparable among the studied subjects?

Can authors exclude that the absence of differences in cfDNA that have been reported is not related to different timing of blood collection during NM period?

We aimed to collect NM samples 14-18 days after the beginning of menstruation and within a window of 1 cycle. As mentioned in the previous response, our study was designed to observe the impact of endometrial shedding during menses. If we designed the study as to collect at a specific non-menstruating phase we would have had to perform an immense amount of tracking via additional blood tests in each participant which is not feasible in the scope of our study. A change in cfDNA levels between different phases if the NM period is possible, and a worthwhile topic for future study, however, it seems less likely than a change during menstruation.

Re: In addition, authors reported, in table 1S, that some enrolled women were undergoing oral contraceptive therapy (11/40, 27.5%). Can this type of therapy influence cfDNA? Can authors exclude that cfDNA can vary in relation to hormonal fluctuation or oral contraceptive therapy?

To the best of our knowledge, the effect of oral contraception on cfDNA is yet to be investigated. We stratified our 40 matched cohort into oral contraception non-user (29/40) and user (11/40) and performed a two-way ANOVA analysis after the stratification. The analysis showed no significant effect from the use of oral contraception.

As above, we note that we were aiming to measure any change in cfDNA caused by endometrial shedding during menses, and as such, non-menstruating women, either using or not using oral contraception, were an adequate control. We appreciate that if we were monitoring changes during the luteal and follicular phases of the cycle, including women using oral contraception in the control group would not have been appropriate.

We have added to following comment to the discussion to highlight this as a limitation of our study (p.14, lines 361-363):

Furthermore, we did not exclude women with current use of oral contraceptive, and while we do not anticipate a cofounding effect from this, this has yet to be investigated in the literature.

Re: Age of enrolled women is from 21 to 49 years old and considering that biomarkers can be modified/modulated during age, can this large age range influence results? Is it possible that age is a confounding factor? Or can authors exclude this hypothesis?

Since paired samples were collected from subjects, the menstruating and non-menstruating samples are exactly age-matched, and age is not likely to be confounding factor. Additionally, we performed a correlation analysis between the cfDNA amount and age of the participants tested in our study and there was none.

In response to journal requirement

Comment #1 PLOS ONE’s style requirements.

We have reviewed and amended our manuscript to the requirements of PLOS ONE. If there are any further formatting and layout changes required, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Comment #2 Better detail on participant recruitment.

We have included more detail regarding the recruitment process (how, where and when) in the methods section (page 5, lines 111-119) as well as expanding participant demographic characteristics in Supplementary Table 1 and its description in the methods section (pages 5-6, lines 131-142).

Comment #3 Update Competing Interest statement.

Please see below for the updated Competing Interest statement:

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: KW holds stock in Guardant Health, Exact Sciences and Epigenomics AG. No other authors have competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials from this publication.

We thank the editor and reviewers for their time in assessing our response to the comments. Please do not hesitate to let us know if there are anything further that we can do.

Sincerely,

Dr. Kristina Warton

Corresponding author

k.warton@unsw.edu.au

(02) 9385 1439

Gynaecological Cancer Research Group

School of Women’s and Children’s Health

Faculty of Medicine

University of New South Wales

Sydney, Australia

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Francesco Bertolini

12 Apr 2021

Total and Endothelial Cell-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Blood Plasma Does Not Change During Menstruation

PONE-D-20-36096R1

Dear Dr. Warton,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Bertolini, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The atuthors provided a detaile rebuttal letter trying to address, to their best the specific comments by the reviewer. The major concern was specifically addressed on the statistical analysis on the provided sample size and satisfactory responsed have been provided and sustained.

The authors also better stressed on the limintayion of their study.

I would consider the manuscript to be accepted to the journal.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Francesco Bertolini

15 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-36096R1

Total and Endothelial Cell-Derived Cell-Free DNA in Blood Plasma Does Not Change During Menstruation

Dear Dr. Warton:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Francesco Bertolini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Demographic of 40 healthy female volunteers.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Fig. CHD5 primers are specific for unmethylated DNA.

    (A) A schematic of primer location in the CDH5 region spanning from +122 bp to +218 bp. CpG mismatches are shown as •. The arrows indicate forward and reverse primers. qPCR amplification (B) and melt curve (C) plot of CDH5 primer selectivity and specificity in 1 ng of in-vitro unmethylated (green) and methylated DNA (red) set with NTC (black) as control.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Reproducible quantification of unmethylated CDH5 in human primary endothelial cells.

    qPCR amplification plot of CDH5 in (A) human aortic endothelial cells (3 ng and 111 pg) and (B) blood brain barrier endothelial cells (2 ng and 125 pg) as primer validation.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES