Literature DB >> 21264207

Detection of somatic mutations by high-resolution DNA melting (HRM) analysis in multiple cancers.

Jesus Gonzalez-Bosquet1, Jacob Calcei, Jun S Wei, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Mark E Sherman, Stephen Hewitt, Joseph Vockley, Jolanta Lissowska, Hannah P Yang, Javed Khan, Stephen Chanock.   

Abstract

Identification of somatic mutations in cancer is a major goal for understanding and monitoring the events related to cancer initiation and progression. High resolution melting (HRM) curve analysis represents a fast, post-PCR high-throughput method for scanning somatic sequence alterations in target genes. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of HRM analysis for tumor mutation screening in a range of tumor samples, which included 216 frozen pediatric small rounded blue-cell tumors as well as 180 paraffin-embedded tumors from breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers (60 of each). HRM analysis was performed in exons of the following candidate genes known to harbor established commonly observed mutations: PIK3CA, ERBB2, KRAS, TP53, EGFR, BRAF, GATA3, and FGFR3. Bi-directional sequencing analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the HRM analysis. For the 39 mutations observed in frozen samples, the sensitivity and specificity of HRM analysis were 97% and 87%, respectively. There were 67 mutation/variants in the paraffin-embedded samples, and the sensitivity and specificity for the HRM analysis were 88% and 80%, respectively. Paraffin-embedded samples require higher quantity of purified DNA for high performance. In summary, HRM analysis is a promising moderate-throughput screening test for mutations among known candidate genomic regions. Although the overall accuracy appears to be better in frozen specimens, somatic alterations were detected in DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded samples.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21264207      PMCID: PMC3022009          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014522

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Recently, the first cancer genomes to be completely sequenced have revealed an unanticiapted breadth and complexity of somatic alterations [1], [2], [3]. The discovery of somatic sequence alterations, has accelerated the investigation of ir underlying mechanisms in carcinogenesis. Somatic alterations implicated in cancer development and growth advantage are called driver mutations. However, the majority of somatic alterations in cancer genomes are a consequence of genomci instability and appear to be passenger or bystander mutations that are unlikely to be involved in oncogenesis [4], [5]. Large-scale sequencing studies have shown that the prevalence and signature of somatic mutations in human cancers are highly variable [5], [6], [7], [8]. Based on these studies, we can estimate that the majority of somatic mutations in cancer cells are likely to be passenger mutations, whereas a minority are estimated to be driver mutations [5], [7]. The full landscape of the prevalence of mutations as well as their functional consequences will not be appreciated until thousands of cancer genomes have been sequenced. Sequencing cancer genomes is a formidable task that requires expensive technologies and computational support to assemble large portions of the genome. Because of the intense interest in identifying key somatic alterations, investigation has focused on techniques for screening or analyzing regions of interest. Most studies have concentrated on coding regions and adjacent intronic or putative regulatory regions [9]. One of those techniques is the high resolution melting (HRM) curve analysis, a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based high-throughput assay for detecting DNA sequence variation by measuring changes in the melting of a DNA duplex, that has been used successfully with DNA extracted from both frozen and paraffin-embedded tissue [10], [11], [12]. HRM specific PCR products are generated to interrogate conformational differences, also known as dissociation curve analysis, using conventional real-time PCR platforms. It is utilized in combination with a double stranded DNA binding dye in order to characterize primer-related non-specific amplification (or primer dimer) for detection of a specific target. Single-base changes in PCR products are detected by altered HRM properties monitored through the release of fluorescent double strand DNA binding dye [13], [14]. The development of accurate and inexpensive instruments that offer HRM capabilities, and new fluorescent dyes, make this method attractive for targeted mutation scanning and also germ line genotyping. HRM analysis is utilized to pre-scan candidate genes suspicious of harboring mutations, reducing significantly the amount of DNA sequencing to be performed [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of an inexpensive HRM analysis platform for mutation scanning of single-base variation in a range of tumor samples: frozen pediatric small rounded blue-cell tumors and paraffin-embedded tumors from breast, endometrium and ovarian cancers. Bi-directional sequence analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of this DNA HRM technology.

Methods

Ethics Statement

The Institutional Review Board for the Polish Breast, Ovarian, and Endometrial Cancer Study were approved by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), at Bethesda, MD, the M. Sklodowska Institute of Oncology and Cancer Center in Warsaw, and the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) in Lodz, both in Poland [21]. Written informed consent for participation on the studies was obtained at the participating institutions from all participants involved. All frozen samples from pediatric small rounded blue-cell tumors and obtained from Cooperative Human Tissue Network (http://chtn.nci.nih.gov/), were anonymized, and our protocol was reviewed by the Office of Human Subjects Research at National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, and deemed exempt.

DNA samples

Frozen tissue samples

Snap frozen tumor samples were obtained from Cooperative Human Tissue Network (http://chtn.nci.nih.gov/). Neuroblastoma cell lines and their culture conditions are described elsewhere [22]. Genomic DNA was extracted from frozen primary tumor samples (neuroblastoma, n = 140; rhabdomyosarcoma, n = 63) and neuroblastoma cell lines (n = 13) using a published protocol [23]. DNA concentration was quantified using NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, DE), and then adjusted to the same concentration, 10 ng/µL, for the 12 assays. Matched control genomic DNA was available from peripheral blood for 43 cancers.

Paraffin-embedded tissue samples

The Polish Breast, Ovarian, and Endometrial Cancer Study is part of a collaborative study between the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), the M. Sklodowska Institute of Oncology and Cancer Center in Warsaw, and the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) in Lodz [21] designed to study risk factors for breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer [24], [25], [26]. Paraffin blocks of tumor tissue from participants of this study that underwent surgery were collected. In total, we included tissue from 60 participants with breast cancer, 60 with endometrial cancer and 60 with ovarian cancer. Single 0.6 mm tissue cores targeted to areas with tumor that had been identified and marked by a pathologist (MES) were obtained from each tumor block for DNA extraction, using a tissue microarray coring needle for each sample. Microdissection was performed for a small proportion of the samples, making it difficult to accurately assess the percentage of tumor material. Nucleic acid extraction was performed with the Agencourt® FormaPure™ kit (Agencourt Bioscience Corporation, Beverly, MA) according to the manufacturer's instructions. To avoid interferences with the PCR we removed RNA from purified total nucleic acid during the extraction method. After extraction and purification, DNA concentration and purity were quantified using NanoDrop (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Wilmington, DE). Total genomic DNA extracted with this method yielded an averaged of 2.07 µg (range 0.03 to 7.69 µg). The purity of DNA for each extraction method was assessed by measuring the intensity of absorbance of the DNA solution at wavelengths 260 nm (A260) and 280 nm (A280).

Selection of exons for screening

The set of exons selected for this mutation scanning analysis were drawn from cancer genes frequently mutated (PIK3CA, ERBB2, KRAS, TP53, EGFR, BRAF, GATA3, and FGFR3) in published reports, with a particular emphasis on breast, ovarian and endometrium cancers [5], [9], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. Also, HRM analysis for these particular genomic regions had already been optimized.

Primers and pre-HRM PCR

Primers of the exons, as well as the size of the amplicons, used for the pre-HRM PCR are listed in Table 1. On average, 40 bp of the proximal - or 5′- intronic region flanking the target exon and 41 bp of the 3′ intronic region flanking the target exon were covered by the amplicon. The only exception was exon 6 of GATA3, which measures 1462 bp, of which 284 bp correspond to coding nucleotides. In this particular case, the amplicon did not extend over the 3′ side of the intron (Table 1 for details).
Table 1

Primers for pre-HRM DNA amplification.

GeneExonSize (bp)Direction primerPrimerIntron 5′ coverage (bp)Intron 3′ coverage (bp)
PIK3CA 10258Forward ATCCAGAGGGGAAAAATATGAC 58-
Reverse TGAGATCAGCCAAATTCAGTTAT -74
FGFR3 13195Forward TGCCTCCCACCCCTTCC 21-
Reverse AGGCGTCCTACTGGCAT -51
ERBB2 25200Forward ACATGGGTGCTTCCCATTC 22-
Reverse GCTCCTTGGTCCTTCACCTA -22
TP53 51 186Forward GCCCTGACTTTCAACTCTG 39-
Reverse CCTCACAACCTCCGTCAT --
TP53 52 115Forward TGGCCATCTACAAGCAGTC --
Reverse CAGCCCTGTCGTCTCTC -34
TP53 7200Forward GGCGCACTGGCCTCATCT 39-
Reverse AGAGGCTGGGGCACAGCA -51
EGFR 23213Forward CAGCAGGGTCTTCTCTGTTTC 23-
Reverse GAAAATGCTGGCTGACCTAAAG -34
KRAS 2208Forward GTGACATGTTCTAATATAGTCACATTTTC 46-
Reverse GGTCCTGCACCAGTAATATG -40
BRAF 15184Forward AGATCTACTGTTTTCCTTTACTTACTACACC 35-
Reverse AATCAGTGGAAAAATAGCCTCAATTCT -30
GATA3 5190Forward GATTTCACCCTCTCCTCTCTCCC 32-
Reverse AGCCCTGTTCTTGCTGATCC -32
GATA3 61 194Forward GTGGAACCCTTCTTGGTGTG 88-
Reverse AGTCCTCCAGTGAGTCATGC --
GATA3 62 154Forward AAATGTCTAGCAAATCCAAAAAGTGCAA --
Reverse GTGGTCAGCATGTGGCTGGA --79

Proximal region.

Distal region.

Proximal region. Distal region. Attention to detail in pre-HRM PCR conditions is paramount for optimization: 1) design of PCR primers to keep GC content under or as close as 60% as possible, product size around 200 bp and avoid known variants within the primer region; 2) selection of optimal annealing temperatures with gradient PCR; 3) and design of PCR experiments in a consistent manner: same assay, with same sample batch and same machine run. PCR-based analyses for the different genes were performed in 96-well format with 10 µL volumes and included 10 ng of genomic DNA for frozen samples, and 1 µL of solution containing genomic DNA for paraffin-embedded tissue samples, with mean concentration of 25.8 ng/µL (SD = 21.7), and ranging from 2 to over 55 ng/µL (first quartile 8.4 ng/µL, and third quartile 36.3 ng/µL). Master Mix that included all deoxynucleoside triphosphates, Taq polymerase, and the LCGreen® PLUS (Idaho Technology, Salt Lake City, UT) was used for the pre-HRM PCR. PCR was performed using a MJ Research PTC 225 Thermal Cycler (MJ Research, GMI Inc., Ramsey, MN) with an initial denaturation at 95°C for 2 minutes, followed by 45 cycles of 2 step temperature cycling of 95°C for 30 seconds, and 66 to 70°C for 30 seconds (PIK3CA, ERBB2, KRAS at 66°C; TP53, EGFR, BRAF at 68°C; GATA3, FGFR3 at 70°C). After PCR, the samples were heated to 93°C for 30 seconds and then cooled to 25°C before HRM.

Sample handling

Frozen. HRM analyses were performed in duplicate on all the samples yielding either frank (n = 59) or minimal variations (n = 99) in the normalized HRM curve, and also in 20% randomly chosen negative samples (n = 45). A second round of HRM was performed to assess the reproducibility of the method, using known negative controls and positive controls. Frank variations were defined as those HRM curves interpreted by the software to be suspicious of harboring a nucleotide change or a mutation/variant, and were represented in red in the graphics (Figure S1). Minimal variation on a sample was considered when the software detected minor variance in the HRM curve with respect to the averaged wild-type curve without calling it a mutation (3% of all calls) (Figure S1). These samples were represented either in grey or green, depending on their degree of separation with the averaged wild-type curve. All samples with frank or minimal variation of the curve underwent a repeated HRM analysis, and were also sequenced. Paraffin-embedded. We analyzed 60 breast cancer samples, 60 endometrial cancer samples and 60 ovarian cancer samples. The quality of the extracted DNA was measured by the presence of pre-HRM PCR product in the HRM analysis and by the presence of a single band on a 1.5% agarose gel [33]. In this set, all samples were bi-directionally sequenced.

HRM Curve Analysis

Samples were amplified in 96-well plates, and HRM curves acquisition was performed on a prototype version of the HRM instrument, LightScanner™, using LCGreen® Plus+ Dye (Idaho Technology, Salt Lake City, UT). Depending on the assay combination on the plate, HRM range was set to accommodate each assay individual profile with at least 4°C prior to the first melt transition on the plate, with a slope of 0.3°C/s, and at least 3 degrees after the last fragment has completely melted. Since HRM was performed in this study as the screening technology, the curves were analyzed using custom LightScanner™ software (Idaho Technology, Salt Lake City, UT). Normalization and background subtraction were first performed by fitting an exponential to the background surrounding the HRM transitions of interest. The normalized HRM curves were temperature-overlaid, to eliminate slight temperature errors between wells or runs. Difference plots of these normalized and temperature-overlaid curves were obtained by taking the fluorescence difference of each curve from the average wild-type curve at all temperature points [13], [14]. HRM curves with a plot interpreted by the software to be different from the averaged wild-type curve were considered to be suspicious of harboring a nucleotide change or a mutation/variant (Figure S1). These analytical methods have been applied previously to mutation scanning [34], [35].

Bi-directional Sequence Analysis

Bi-directional sequence analysis was performed with primers that were designed by extending each oligonucleotide used in the pre-HRM PCR with a universal sequencing primer: M13 forward (TGTAAAACGACGGCCAGT) or M13 reverse (CAGGAAACAGCTATGACC). PCR conditions for sequencing analysis were performed in 96-well format with 10 µL volumes and included 1 µL of amplified DNA from the pre-HRM PCR reaction. Genomic DNA was used only when the sequence reaction failed with amplified DNA. PCR products were sequenced using a modified ABI Prism® BigDye Terminator protocol (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Unincorporated dyes terminators and salts were removed utilizing a Sephadex G-50 (Sigma, St Louis, MO) spin columns in a MultiScreen®-HV 96-well filter plate (Millipore, Billerica, MA). The reactions were run on an ABI 3730XL (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Sequence traces were analyzed and compared using two software packages (SeqScape™ v2.5 and Variant Reporter™ v1.0, both from Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) and reviewed by two independent reviewers [9]. When the software was unable to align and assemble the forward and the reverse sequences the sample was considered to have failed the sequencing process for the purpose of this study. For the paraffin-embedded assays that did not performed as well as their frozen counterparts (specifically exons from genes TP53 and GATA3), PCR conditions as well as their primers were modified to improve sequencing. This included generating primers that extended across more of the genomic regions or slide 20–30 bp up or down stream. But we noted that the new, specific assays failed to optimize while testing different regions would alter the purpose of the study. In summary, sequencing error rate was 2.5% for frozen specimens and 20.0% for paraffin-embedded. Nucleotide changes detected by sequencing were classified as novel alterations or known SNPs (or Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) if found in dbSNP, Build 130, from the NCBI (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/), using Genewindow (genewindow.nci.nih.gov) [36].

Statistical Analysis

The association between the quantity of DNA extracted from the paraffin-embedded tissue (levels: ≤10 ng/µL, 11–20 ng/µL, 21–30 ng/µL, and >30 ng/µL) and a successful pre-HRM PCR assay, measured either by the presence of a single amplicon in agarose gel or the presence of a DNA product at the HRM analysis, was performed by logistic regression analysis. Agreement between 2 variables (or reliability) was determined by a Kappa test. Kappa values less than 0.40 indicate low association, between 0.40 and 0.75 indicate medium association, and values greater than 0.75 indicate high association between two measures. Screening capabilities of HRM and the consistency of the analysis were measure using classical metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, false negative and positive rates, considering sequencing analysis as the standard measurement for both frozen and paraffin-embedded extracted samples. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft® Excel (Redmond, WA) and R statistical package (www.r-project.org/).

Results

Frozen samples

Mutation screening was performed on 12 amplicons for each of 216 frozen samples during the initial HRM analysis (2,592 different determinations). We observed 59 HRM positive samples, 2510 HRM negative, and only 23 of these measurements were not evaluable (less than 1%). For the repeat HRM experiments, 47 were positive, 156 negative, and only 1 out of 204 was not evaluable. In total, 2,772 out of 2,796 (2,592 in first HRM round, and 204 in the second HRM round), or 99.1%, experiments were evaluable for screening of mutations/variants by HRM analysis. In the initial round of analysis, 4 assays had no mutation detected: ERBB2 exon 25, the distal region of TP53 exon 5, GATA3 exon 5, and the proximal region of GATA3 exon 6. For the remainder tested exons, between 1 to 9 putative nucleotide substitutions were detected; notably exon 13 of FGFR3 had the highest number, 30. The results of mutation screening by HRM technology in both experiments, initial and repeat, as well as the validation with sequencing for frozen samples are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2

Results of mutation screening by HRM (initial screen and repeat) and sequencing from frozen samples.

HRM positiveHRM negativeSequencing positiveSequencing negativeRepeated HRM positiveRepeated HRM negative
PIK3CA×1022132525
ERBB2×2502150808
KRAS×232135535
TP53×5(1)52063757
TP53×5(2)0215015114
TP53×79207515713
EGFR×2362106868
BRAF×153213113212
GATA3×502160808
GATA3×6(1)0216010010
GATA3×6(2)1215116116
FGFR3×133017116542050
Total592,5103916447156
HRM experiments were repeated on all the samples with evidence of a putative mutation on the HRM curve, and also in a subset of negative samples. The agreement between the initial and repeat screen of HRM experiments was 91%, with a kappa test value of 0.77, or high concordance between both. In general, HRM curves presented similar shapes in both independent analyses (Figure S2). The majority of disagreements resided in samples called abnormal in the initial screen and normal, or without mutation, in the repeat HRM experiment (n = 12), that were confirmed normal by sequencing. Only 1 repeated HRM analysis failed to detect a nucleotide substitution in a sample with respect to the initial screen. Later sequencing of this sample detected a substitution of reference GG alleles, at position 7518234 of chromosome 17 (exon 7 of gene TP53), by AA. The sensitivity and specificity for mutation/variant screening were 97% and 87% respectively when compared to bi-directional sequencing, with a false negative rate of 3%. The overall accuracy of the test was 89% (Table 3). When the second, repeated HRM analysis was compared to sequencing results, specificity increased to 94%, as well as the accuracy, 94% (kappa of 0.82); but the false negative rate also increased to 5%. Details of sequencing results for mutations are described in Table 4. One false negative was detected when comparing HRM experiments with sequencing, failing to detect a nucleotide change, from AA to AG, in both the initial and repeat screens. This variant turned out to be a known SNP in exon 13 of FGFR3, rs7688609 (Table 4). Notably, comprehensive public databases (dbSNP and Ensembl) indicated G as the ancestral, reference allele in the DNA sequence for this locus, but the majority of sequenced samples in our study, 63 out of 67 (or 94%), were homozygous for AA, and only 6% were heterozygous for G (GA). Given this disparity on allele frequencies with available public data, we decided to sequence all 3 populations of HapMap as well as the SNP500 population for this particular amplicon (n = 366) [37], [38]. Overall, allele A frequency was 94%, and allele G frequency was 6%. Yoruba population presented the highest G frequency with 17%. At the same time, we sequenced this region for 43 available germ line DNA from the patients suffering from these pediatric tumors; all of them were homozygous for AA. After sequencing all paraffin-embedded samples, we found similar allele frequencies.
Table 3

Comparison between HRM mutation screening (initial screen) and sequencing of frozen samples.

+ Sequencing− SequencingTotal
+ HRM382159
− HRM1143144
Total39164203

Sensibility: 0.97.

Specificity: 0.87.

False positive: 0.13.

False negative: 0.03.

Accuracy: 0.89.

Note: These calculations are based uniquely on samples successfully sequenced.

Table 4

Mutation details from the sequencing analysis of frozen samples.

GeneExonChromosomeLocationNucleotideKnown SNPSamples affected
PIK3CA 103180418785G/ANo1
103180418867A/TNo1
FGFR3 ** 1341777618G/ANo1
1341777626C/TNo1
1341777647C/GNo1
1341777674C/TNo1
1341777692A/G** rs76886094
1341777713G/Crs178868881
1341777720G/Ars31358989
ERBB2 2517---
TP53 5(1)177519251G/TNo2
5(1)177519188G/ANo1
5(1)177519200Del(cgcccggcaccc)No1
5(1)177519198Del(cccggcaccc)No1
5(2)17---
TP53 * 7177518317C/T* No1
7177518315A/C* No1
7177518269T/GTP53-147 (Poly-0023190)1
7177518264C/TTP53-148 (Poly-0023191)1
7177518263G/Ars115406521
7177518234G/ANo1
EGFR 23755226944C/Trs172905596
KRAS 21225289548G/ANo2
21225289551G/ANo1
BRAF 157140099605T/ABRAF-01(Poly-0019246)1
GATA3 510---
GATA3 6(1)10---
6(2)108155836C/TGATA3-54 (Poly-0008004)1

*One sample had 2 mutation/variants.

**Both, dbSNP and Ensembl, appoint G as the ancestral allele; but the overall allele frequency in both reports was 96% for A and 4% for G.

Sensibility: 0.97. Specificity: 0.87. False positive: 0.13. False negative: 0.03. Accuracy: 0.89. Note: These calculations are based uniquely on samples successfully sequenced. *One sample had 2 mutation/variants. **Both, dbSNP and Ensembl, appoint G as the ancestral allele; but the overall allele frequency in both reports was 96% for A and 4% for G.

Paraffin-embedded samples

The A260/A280 ratio, a measure of the purity of the paraffin-embedded extracted DNA, had a mean of 1.92 (SD = 0.45) for all breast cancer samples, a mean of 1.82 (SD = 0.12) for endometrial cancer samples, and a mean of 2.0 (SD = 0.27) for ovarian cancer samples. There was a direct association between the concentration of DNA (in ng/µL) extracted from the paraffin-embedded samples, the DNA amount used for the pre-HRM PCR, and the presence of a single band in the agarose gel (p<0.001). Also there was an association between extracted DNA concentration and the presence of an adequate HRM curve for analysis (p<0.001). HRM was successful 96% of the time when the quantity of paraffin-embedded extracted DNA used for this technique was more than 30 ng in comparison with 92% when the quantity was ≤30 ng (Table 5).
Table 5

Correlation between the quantity of DNA extracted from the paraffin-embedded tissue, used for pre-HRM PCR, and a band in the gel (p<0.001). Also, correlation between DNA quantity and the presence of a HRM curve (p<0.001).

Band in gel
DNA (ng/µL)YesNoTotal%
0–30444725160.86
>3019682040.96
Total640807200.89
Overall, 93% (2,008 out of 2,153) of the measurements of paraffin-embedded samples by HRM analysis were evaluable. This technique was more successful when frozen DNA specimens were analyzed than when DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded samples was used, 99.1% versus 93.3% (p<0.001). The results of the mutation screening by HRM technology and its validation with bi-directional sequence analysis for the paraffin-embedded samples are displayed in Table 6. Also, a representation of these results is portrayed in Figure S3. The overall sensitivity and specificity for the samples suspicious for mutation in the HRM analysis were 88% and 80% respectively when compared to sequencing, with a false negative rate of 12% (Table 7). However, a relatively small percentage of DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded samples was difficult to sequence. As we mentioned, the sequence reaction was undertaken using amplified DNA from the pre-HRM PCR. When sequencing of a particular assay failed, genomic DNA was utilized and sequencing repeated. With this strategy, confirmatory sequence in frozen samples could be performed over 97% of the time. This was not the case with DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue, where sequencing was achieved 80% of the time using the same strategy. In particular, the success rate of DNA sequencing from paraffin-embedded tissue was less than 50% for exons from genes TP53 (distal region of exon 5, and exon 7) and GATA3 (proximal region of exon 6), affecting the comparison between sequence analysis and HRM curves. Sequencing of these amplicons failed in 341 out of 397 reactions, which accounted for 86% of all failed sequencing. When these failed assays were excluded from the comparison between HRM curves and sequencing, sensitivity increased to 92%, with an accuracy of 80%. Paraffin-embedded sequencing details are described in Table S1. All new nucleotides changes found on the study samples were submitted to dbSNP (build 131) and displayed in Table S2.
Table 6

Results of mutation screening by HRM and sequencing from the paraffin-embedded samples.

HRM +HRM −TotalSequencing +Sequencing −
PIK3CA×102673 99 693
ERBB2×2544130 174 7167
KRAS×27598 173 24149
TP53×5–113158 171 7164
TP53×5–22076 96 591
TP53×7327 30 228
EGFR×2326146 172 7165
BRAF×1526142 168 1167
GATA×534127 161 3158
GATA×6–1850 58 058
GATA×6–236124 160 0160
FGFR3×135371 124 5119
Total3641,222 1,586 671,519
Table 7

Comparison between HRM mutation screening and sequencing of paraffin-embedded samples.

+ Sequencing− SequencingTotal
+ HRM59305364
− HRM81,2141,222
Total671,5191,586

Sensibility: 0.88.

Specificity: 0.80.

False positive: 0.20.

False negative: 0.12.

Accuracy: 0.80.

Note: These calculations are based uniquely on samples successfully sequenced.

Sensibility: 0.88. Specificity: 0.80. False positive: 0.20. False negative: 0.12. Accuracy: 0.80. Note: These calculations are based uniquely on samples successfully sequenced.

Discussion

HRM analysis using the LightScanner™ represents a moderate-throughput screening test for mutations among candidate genomic regions. The comparison with bi-directional sequencing analysis provides strong evidence for its accuracy despite the low prevalence mutation/variant rate, particularly since selected exons harbored no mutations. Our results are consistent with earlier reports [28], [39]. The observed rate was 39 for 2,569 (or 1.5%) mutation/variant for all analyzed exons within the 216 frozen pediatric small rounded blue-cell tumors, and 67 for 1,586 (or 4.2%) mutation/variant for all analyzed exons in the 180 gynecological solid tumors (Tables 4 and S1, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of HRM analysis was higher in frozen samples compared to paraffin-embedded samples, with an observed sensitivity of 97% for DNA extracted from frozen samples whereas it is 88% for DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue. Lower performance of some assays when comparing DNA from paraffin-embedded specimens versus frozen samples has also been described in previous studies for KRAS and EGFR [12]. These differences are due, at least to some extent, to sequence alterations in DNA related to cross-linking between proteins and DNA, and inversely correlated with the number of cells within the samples [40], [41], [42]. Also, the presence of multiple mutations and point deletions may alter the efficiency of the assay, possibly the reason for low performance in TP53 assays [16], [43]. The majority of HRM studies performed to date have concluded that, with some limitations, this is a relatively simple, rapid and inexpensive technique for detecting genomic variation in paraffin-embedded tissue samples [43]; with consistent reports on some of the genes screened on our study [11], [16], [40], [44]. Its limitations are related to a lower efficiency on regions with deletions (or insertions), on detecting homozygous variations (when compared to heterozigous), on specific assays, and the lack of agreement on the optimal length of PCR product or melting domains per amplicon [12], [13], [16]. In order to eliminate the subtle differences in the reagent components between the final elution buffers from multiple extraction platforms and to minimize variability within samples our approach was to perform the DNA extraction using a common extraction platform, conditions and protocol. With optimized sample handling and standardized DNA extraction, it is possible to screen paraffin-embedded samples with higher sensitivity [40], [41]. Despite the increased fragmentation of DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue, it is possible to reliably screen shorter amplification products up to 250 bp in length. In addition, the extent of DNA fragmentation correlates with tissue type [12], [45], [46]. Success on both, HRM curve and sequencing analyses, is over 97% when 10 ng of DNA is used from frozen samples. But those results could not be achieved with the same quantity of paraffin-embedded extracted DNA (successful HRM analysis in 84%). By increasing the quantity of purified DNA added to the pre-HRM PCR ≤30 ng performance improved, partially overcoming the challenge posed by sub-optimal double stranded DNA. Optimization of pre-HRM PCR can also mitigate reduced sensitivity, especially while using special dye chemistry [46]. DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissues was also more difficult to sequence than DNA from frozen tissue [47], [48]. However, the objective of this study was not to establish an optimized protocol for sequencing of DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded tissue, but to assess the screening capabilities of the HRM analysis. Once optimal experimental conditions for HRM and sequencing analyses on the frozen samples were determined, we applied them to the paraffin-embedded set, to attain a fair comparison between both sets of samples. Protocol modifications of sequencing experiments could modestly improve performance, such as the use of whole genome amplification [49], [50], but this can introduce loss of heterozygosity. Steps to optimize sequencing can also include alternative primers or denaturation conditions. Based on these considerations, our recommendations to maintain and, perhaps, enhance the screening capabilities of HRM analysis for paraffin-embedded extracted samples with a LightScanner™ would include the following: Inclusion of ≥30 ng total genomic DNA may increase HRM analysis success rate up to 96%. Pre-HRM PCR optimization should include careful primer selection to reduce GC content, adequate amplicon size, and optimal annealing temperature. Amplicons that failed sequencing over 50% of the times also performed poorly during HRM analysis. So it may be worthwhile to test the selected amplicons by sequencing a few samples at the beginning of the experiment. The false positive rate of HRM analysis in paraffin embedded samples was approximately 20%, which implies that additional sequencing is needed to improve accuracy in the subset of samples with a putative mutation [12]. HRM analysis on frozen samples only considered 59 of them abnormal, for 39 with real mutation/variants. Thus, it would be necessary to sequence fewer samples for each mutation. Therefore, not only the performance is better in frozen samples with respect to paraffin-embedded samples, but also cost-efficiency. In conclusion, HRM analysis with the LightScanner™ is a promising screening tool for mutation/variant in somatic DNA extracted from either frozen or paraffin-embedded samples, although overall accuracy is better in frozen specimens, probably related to DNA quality. This method is able to detect mutations as well as known SNPs, even in genomic regions with a low mutation prevalence rate in the range of 5% or perhaps lower. Representation of HRM curve of BRAF exon 15 from genomic DNA extracted from frozen samples. Red arrow: HRM curves with a plot interpreted by the software to be suspicious of harboring a nucleotide change or a mutation/variant. HRM was repeated for all these samples, and all of them were sequenced. Green arrows: HRM curves with minimal variations with respect to the averaged wild-type curve. All these samples also were sequenced and HRM was repeated. Black arrow: All normalized HRM curves considered to have a wild-type sequence. 20% of these samples were randomly chosen to be repeated and sequenced as negative controls. (2.49 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file. Example of HRM output from genomic DNA from tumor frozen samples set. A. Output of one of the 3 plates used for the initial analysis of exon 2 of KRAS. Each square represents a well: brown squares are negative controls; grey squares represent samples with no mutation/variant; red squares represent possible mutation/variant; and green are unknown for mutation/variant. B. Normalized HRM curve from the same samples in the exon 2 of KRAS initial analysis. C. Normalized HRM curve of the repeated KRAS analysis. (0.68 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file. Samples of mutation screening with HRM technology and its validation with sequencing from paraffin-embedded samples. A. One of the assays (EGFR) performed in paraffin-embedded samples from breast cancer: 1. Normalized HRM curves of the assay; 2. Segment of sample assembled trace after sequencing, with the presence of a variant, where AA has replaced both alleles GG. B. Endometrial paraffin-embedded samples for KRAS. 1. Normalized HRM curves of the assay with elevated number of positives samples observed in the HRM curves from paraffin specimens compare to frozen samples; 2. Genotype GG has been substituted by GA. (9.83 MB TIF) Click here for additional data file. Mutation details from the sequencing analysis of paraffin-embedded samples. (0.09 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file. New nucleotides changes found on the study samples submitted to dbSNP (build 131). (0.09 MB DOC) Click here for additional data file.
  50 in total

1.  Genewindow: an interactive tool for visualization of genomic variation.

Authors:  Brian Staats; Liqun Qi; Michael Beerman; Hugues Sicotte; Laura A Burdett; Bernice Packer; Stephen J Chanock; Meredith Yeager
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 38.330

2.  High-resolution DNA melting analysis for simultaneous mutation scanning and genotyping in solution.

Authors:  Luming Zhou; Lesi Wang; Robert Palais; Robert Pryor; Carl T Wittwer
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 8.327

3.  Simple salting-out method for DNA extraction from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues.

Authors:  Elena R C Rivero; Adriana C Neves; Maria G Silva-Valenzuela; Suzana O M Sousa; Fabio D Nunes
Journal:  Pathol Res Pract       Date:  2006-05-24       Impact factor: 3.250

4.  Polymorphisms in DNA double-strand break repair genes and risk of breast cancer: two population-based studies in USA and Poland, and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Montserrat García-Closas; Kathleen M Egan; Polly A Newcomb; Louise A Brinton; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; Stephen Chanock; Robert Welch; Jolanta Lissowska; Beata Peplonska; Neonila Szeszenia-Dabrowska; Witold Zatonski; Alicja Bardin-Mikolajczak; Jeffery P Struewing
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2006-02-17       Impact factor: 4.132

5.  The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers.

Authors:  Tobias Sjöblom; Siân Jones; Laura D Wood; D Williams Parsons; Jimmy Lin; Thomas D Barber; Diana Mandelker; Rebecca J Leary; Janine Ptak; Natalie Silliman; Steve Szabo; Phillip Buckhaults; Christopher Farrell; Paul Meeh; Sanford D Markowitz; Joseph Willis; Dawn Dawson; James K V Willson; Adi F Gazdar; James Hartigan; Leo Wu; Changsheng Liu; Giovanni Parmigiani; Ben Ho Park; Kurtis E Bachman; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Bert Vogelstein; Kenneth W Kinzler; Victor E Velculescu
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-09-07       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  The clinical value of somatic TP53 gene mutations in 1,794 patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Magali Olivier; Anita Langerød; Patrizia Carrieri; Jonas Bergh; Sigrid Klaar; Jorunn Eyfjord; Charles Theillet; Carmen Rodriguez; Rosette Lidereau; Ivan Bièche; Jennifer Varley; Yves Bignon; Nancy Uhrhammer; Robert Winqvist; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Dieter Niederacher; Shunsuke Kato; Chikashi Ishioka; Pierre Hainaut; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Detection of EGFR- and HER2-activating mutations in squamous cell carcinoma involving the head and neck.

Authors:  Carlynn Willmore-Payne; Joseph A Holden; Lester J Layfield
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.842

8.  Mutation of GATA3 in human breast tumors.

Authors:  Jerry Usary; Victor Llaca; Gamze Karaca; Shafaq Presswala; Mehmet Karaca; Xiaping He; Anita Langerød; Rolf Kåresen; Daniel S Oh; Lynn G Dressler; Per E Lønning; Robert L Strausberg; Stephen Chanock; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-10-07       Impact factor: 9.867

9.  SNP500Cancer: a public resource for sequence validation, assay development, and frequency analysis for genetic variation in candidate genes.

Authors:  Bernice R Packer; Meredith Yeager; Laura Burdett; Robert Welch; Michael Beerman; Liqun Qi; Hugues Sicotte; Brian Staats; Mekhala Acharya; Andrew Crenshaw; Andrew Eckert; Vinita Puri; Daniela S Gerhard; Stephen J Chanock
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2006-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Established breast cancer risk factors by clinically important tumour characteristics.

Authors:  M García-Closas; L A Brinton; J Lissowska; N Chatterjee; B Peplonska; W F Anderson; N Szeszenia-Dabrowska; A Bardin-Mikolajczak; W Zatonski; A Blair; Z Kalaylioglu; G Rymkiewicz; D Mazepa-Sikora; R Kordek; S Lukaszek; M E Sherman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  24 in total

1.  High-resolution melting effectively pre-screens for TP53 mutations before direct sequencing in patients with diffuse glioma.

Authors:  Kiyotaka Saito; Kiyotaka Yokogami; Kazunari Maekawa; Yuichiro Sato; Shinji Yamashita; Fumitaka Matsumoto; Asako Mizuguchi; Hideo Takeshima
Journal:  Hum Cell       Date:  2021-01-17       Impact factor: 4.174

2.  SPOP mutations in prostate cancer across demographically diverse patient cohorts.

Authors:  Mirjam Blattner; Daniel J Lee; Catherine O'Reilly; Kyung Park; Theresa Y MacDonald; Francesca Khani; Kevin R Turner; Ya-Lin Chiu; Peter J Wild; Igor Dolgalev; Adriana Heguy; Andrea Sboner; Sinan Ramazangolu; Haley Hieronymus; Charles Sawyers; Ashutosh K Tewari; Holger Moch; Ghil Suk Yoon; Yong Chul Known; Ove Andrén; Katja Fall; Francecsa Demichelis; Juan Miguel Mosquera; Brian D Robinson; Christopher E Barbieri; Mark A Rubin
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 5.715

3.  Facile profiling of molecular heterogeneity by microfluidic digital melt.

Authors:  Christine M O'Keefe; Thomas R Pisanic; Helena Zec; Michael J Overman; James G Herman; Tza-Huei Wang
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 14.136

4.  Frequency of TP53 Mutations and its Impact on Drug Sensitivity in Acute Myeloid Leukemia?

Authors:  Ankur Shah; Claire Seedhouse
Journal:  Indian J Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-03-24

5.  Evaluation of PCR-HRM, RFLP, and direct sequencing as simple and cost-effective methods to detect common EGFR mutations in plasma cell-free DNA of non-small cell lung cancer patients.

Authors:  Jamal Zaini; Elisna Syahruddin; Muhammad Yunus; Sita Laksmi Andarini; Achmad Hudoyo; Najmiatul Masykura; Refniwita Yasril; Asep Ridwanuloh; Heriawaty Hidajat; Fariz Nurwidya; Sony Suharsono; Ahmad R H Utomo
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2019-02-03

Review 6.  Endometrial tumour BRAF mutations and MLH1 promoter methylation as predictors of germline mismatch repair gene mutation status: a literature review.

Authors:  Alexander M Metcalf; Amanda B Spurdle
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Detection of EGFR mutation in supernatant, cell pellets of pleural effusion and tumor tissues from non-small cell lung cancer patients by high resolution melting analysis and sequencing.

Authors:  Jie Lin; Ye Gu; Rui Du; Min Deng; Yaodan Lu; Yanqing Ding
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-12-01

8.  KRAS Testing: A Tool for the Implementation of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Rodney E Shackelford; Nicholas A Whitling; Patricia McNab; Shanker Japa; Domenico Coppola
Journal:  Genes Cancer       Date:  2012-07

9.  High-resolution melt analysis to detect sequence variations in highly homologous gene regions: application to CYP2B6.

Authors:  Greyson P Twist; Roger Gaedigk; J Steven Leeder; Andrea Gaedigk
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.533

10.  A comparison of Direct sequencing, Pyrosequencing, High resolution melting analysis, TheraScreen DxS, and the K-ras StripAssay for detecting KRAS mutations in non small cell lung carcinomas.

Authors:  Sylwia Jancik; Jiri Drabek; Jitka Berkovcova; Yong Zhong Xu; Marcela Stankova; Jiri Klein; Vitezslav Kolek; Josef Skarda; Tomas Tichy; Ivona Grygarkova; Danuta Radzioch; Marian Hajduch
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-09-20
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.