It has been proposed that unmethylated insulin promoter fragments in plasma derive exclusively from β cells, reflect their recent demise, and can be used to assess β cell damage in type 1 diabetes. Herein we describe an ultrasensitive assay for detection of a β cell–specific DNA methylation signature, by simultaneous assessment of 6 DNA methylation markers, that identifies β cell DNA in mixtures containing as little as 0.03% β cell DNA (less than 1 β cell genome equivalent). Based on this assay, plasma from nondiabetic individuals (N = 218, aged 4–78 years) contained on average only 1 β cell genome equivalent/mL. As expected, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from β cells was significantly elevated in islet transplant recipients shortly after transplantation. We also detected β cell cfDNA in a patient with KATP congenital hyperinsulinism, in which substantial β cell turnover is thought to occur. Strikingly, in contrast to previous reports, we observed no elevation of β cell–derived cfDNA in autoantibody-positive subjects at risk for type 1 diabetes (N = 32), individuals with recent-onset type 1 diabetes (<4 months, N = 92), or those with long-standing disease (>4 months, N = 38). We discuss the utility of sensitive β cell cfDNA analysis and potential explanations for the lack of a β cell cfDNA signal in type 1 diabetes.
Daniel Neiman, David Gillis, Sheina Piyanzin, Daniel Cohen, Ori Fridlich, Joshua Moss, Aviad Zick, Tal Oron, Frida Sundberg, Gun Forsander, Oskar Skog, Olle Korsgren, Floris Levy-Khademi, Dan Arbel, Saar Hashavya, A.M. James Shapiro, Cate Speake, Carla Greenbaum, Jennifer Hosford, Amanda Posgai, Mark A. Atkinson, Benjamin Glaser, Desmond A. Schatz, Ruth Shemer, Yuval Dor
Usage data is cumulative from June 2020 through August 2020.
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.