Literature DB >> 23284662

Mutation scanning using MUT-MAP, a high-throughput, microfluidic chip-based, multi-analyte panel.

Rajesh Patel1, Alison Tsan, Rachel Tam, Rupal Desai, Jill Spoerke, Nancy Schoenbrunner, Thomas W Myers, Keith Bauer, Edward Smith, Rajiv Raja.   

Abstract

Targeted anticancer therapies rely on the identification of patient subgroups most likely to respond to treatment. Predictive biomarkers play a key role in patient selection, while diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers expand our understanding of tumor biology, suggest treatment combinations, and facilitate discovery of novel drug targets. We have developed a high-throughput microfluidics method for mutation detection (MUT-MAP, mutation multi-analyte panel) based on TaqMan or allele-specific PCR (AS-PCR) assays. We analyzed a set of 71 mutations across six genes of therapeutic interest. The six-gene mutation panel was designed to detect the most common mutations in the EGFR, KRAS, PIK3CA, NRAS, BRAF, and AKT1 oncogenes. The DNA was preamplified using custom-designed primer sets before the TaqMan/AS-PCR assays were carried out using the Biomark microfluidics system (Fluidigm; South San Francisco, CA). A cross-reactivity analysis enabled the generation of a robust automated mutation-calling algorithm which was then validated in a series of 51 cell lines and 33 FFPE clinical samples. All detected mutations were confirmed by other means. Sample input titrations confirmed the assay sensitivity with as little as 2 ng gDNA, and demonstrated excellent inter- and intra-chip reproducibility. Parallel analysis of 92 clinical trial samples was carried out using 2-100 ng genomic DNA (gDNA), allowing the simultaneous detection of multiple mutations. DNA prepared from both fresh frozen and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples were used, and the analysis was routinely completed in 2-3 days: traditional assays require 0.5-1 µg high-quality DNA, and take significantly longer to analyze. This assay can detect a wide range of mutations in therapeutically relevant genes from very small amounts of sample DNA. As such, the mutation assay developed is a valuable tool for high-throughput biomarker discovery and validation in personalized medicine and cancer drug development.

Entities:  

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2012        PMID： 23284662      PMCID： PMC3524125          DOI： 10.1371/journal.pone.0051153

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


Introduction

Biomarkers have assumed a central role in oncology, enabling the detection, characterization, and targeted treatment of a range of cancer types [1]. The successful application of targeted anticancer therapies depends on the detection of disease subtypes that are most likely to respond to treatment. As such, the detection and validation of tumor biomarkers is critical for the ongoing development of personalized healthcare, both through the support of effective and robust drug trials, and the effective employment of targeted therapies in the clinic [2]. Biomarkers are classified according to their utility: diagnostic biomarkers are indicators of biological status that allow classification of tumors according to their genetic and/or phenotypic characteristics. Predictive biomarkers allow the response to a particular line of treatment to be anticipated, based on the known mode of action of the chosen therapy and an understanding of the underlying tumor biology. Prognostic biomarkers enable the prediction of disease progression in the absence of treatment, and have been used to identify signaling pathways that are potential drivers of disease, and putative drug targets [3]. Although techniques such as tissue microarray immunohistochemistry (IHC) and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) allow high-throughput screening of protein and mRNA biomarkers in clinical samples [4], significant challenges remain. Biomarker levels vary across human populations, and significant heterogeneity may be observed within single cancer types, even within samples from a single tumor [5], [6]. This is exacerbated by the possibility that first-line chemotherapy may induce DNA damage in tumor cells, leading to changes in biomarker status; as biopsy samples are often obtained before first-line treatment, this may be an obstacle to the correct selection of subsequent targeted therapies, although the extent of this effect remains unclear [6]. While some anticancer therapeutics are entering the clinic with companion diagnostic tests, a wider characterization of tumor gene expression and mutation status will enable targeted therapies to be combined for specific patient groups without multiple biopsy procedures. A deeper understanding of different tumor subtypes will help explain mechanisms of drug resistance and open up new channels of therapy and research. For this reason, “biomarker pipelines” play an important role in the development of molecular targeted therapies [7]. There are additional challenges associated with biomarker identification using clinical samples containing poor-quality or degraded DNA in limited quantities. Most clinical samples are formalin fixed and paraffin embedded (FFPE) for preservation and storage. While enabling samples to be archived for subsequent biomarker identification and comparison with patient outcomes, this method of preservation leads to nucleic acid fragmentation and cross-linking, so only a small proportion of sample DNA can be probed successfully [8]. Traditional methods of biomarker detection require 0.5–1 µg high-quality DNA and results may take a significant amount of time to analyze, particularly if samples are to be screened for multiple mutations. We have developed a high-throughput method for mutation detection (MUT-MAP, mutation multi-analyte panel) based on TaqMan and allele-specific PCR (AS-PCR) assays using a microfluidic chip-based technology. This approach allows the rapid analysis of 71 mutations across a panel of six genes of therapeutic interest. Parallel analysis of 92 clinical trial samples can be carried out using miniscule amounts of DNA (2–100 ng, based on the quality of genomic DNA [gDNA] isolated), allowing the simultaneous detection of multiple mutations in a single sample. DNA can be isolated from both fresh frozen and FFPE samples, and the analysis is routinely completed in 2–3 days. The six-gene panel mutation assay was designed to detect the most common mutations found in EGFR, KRAS, PIK3CA, NRAS, BRAF, and AKT1. Activating mutations in these genes cause aberrant cell signaling and are found in various types of cancer; their encoded proteins are therefore targets for therapeutic inhibition. For example, mutations in EGFR are linked with increased activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway, which drives tumor growth and promotes survival in several types of cancer [9]. The EGFR and KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to anti-EGFR-targeted therapies such as erlotinib, gefitinib [10], and cetuximab [11]. Additionally, the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib is only effective in patients with V600 mutation-positive melanoma [12], [13], and the phosphoinositide-3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor GDC-0941 is most effective in preclinical tumor models with PIK3CA mutations [14]. Although next-generation parallel sequencing holds great promise for mutation detection across the whole genome, these technologies are not yet mature enough for routine, high-throughput analysis of precious clinical samples. Parallel sequencing generally requires larger quantities of DNA for analysis and takes longer to generate data in comparison with our approach. The MUT-MAP microfluidics system provides a readily available platform for the exploratory detection of predictive and prognostic biomarkers in support of current and future personalized healthcare.

Materials and Methods

Overview of the MUT-MAP Microfluidics System

Mutation screening with the MUT-MAP microfluidics system is a multi-stage process. First, DNA is preamplified using custom-designed primer sets for the exons/genes of interest. The BioMark platform (Fluidigm Corp.) is then used to conduct a combination of quantitative PCR (qPCR) mutation detection assays. We employ two assay formats for mutation detection: both formats utilize TaqMan detection of the amplified product [15]. In one format, which we refer to as TaqMan genotyping or, simply, TaqMan, the discrimination between mutant and wild-type is driven by a differentially-labeled mutant- and wild-type-specific probe [16]. In the other assay format, the discrimination is driven by a mutant-specific primer, or allele-specific PCR (AS-PCR [17], [18]). The AS-PCR assays incorporate the use of an engineered Thermus species Z05 DNA polymerase (AS1) and, in some cases, covalently modified primers to enhance the specificity of allele-specific qPCR [19], [20]. The AS-PCR assays were used for KRAS and EGFR mutation analysis, and have broader coverage of the predominant mutations in these two genes compared with some commercially available assays. An overview of the protocol and process flow is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1

High-Throughput Mutation Detection, Workflow, and Protocol.

The BioMark protocol involves the introduction of premixed qPCR reagents and preamplified DNA onto the MUT-MAP assay chip via the sample inlets. Assay-specific TaqMan primer/probe mixes are normally added via assay ports. This protocol was modified due to the presence of primers and probes in the qPCR reagents for some reactions (EGFR Mutation Test; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. [RMS]; Pleasanton, CA). To ensure compatibility with the BioMark platform, these samples were introduced via the assay inlets, and both TaqMan and AS-PCR assay reagents were added via the sample inlets on the microfluidic chip. Data analysis was also modified to accommodate these changes.

DNA Preamplification

DNA was preamplified in 10 µl reactions on a 96-well plate using a preamplification primer cocktail (Table S1) in the presence of 1x ABI PreAmp Master Mix (Applied Biosystems; Foster City, CA). gDNA (2–10 ng) was isolated from cell lines and fresh frozen samples. However,due to the poor quality of DNA obtained from FFPE clinical samples, 50–100 ng was used for preamplification from this source. Primer concentrations were 100 nM during the amplification reaction. Each preamplification sample set included a gDNA control to determine preamplification performance as well as a no-template control. An additional positive control was made in bulk by preamplification of a cocktail of relevant mutant plasmids for all six genes; this control was run on every chip. Samples were preamplified using a Tetrad Thermal Cycler (BioRad; Hercules, CA) according to the following protocol: 95°C for 10 minutes, then thermal cycling (20 cycles, each of 15 seconds at 95°C followed by 2 minutes at 60°C). Samples were diluted fourfold, mixed, centrifuged at 3500 rpm (5810 R; Eppendorf; Hauppauge, NY), and stored at 4°C or –20°C until further processing. Following preamplification, rigorous procedures were followed to prevent sample contamination, including the use of dedicated workspaces and pipettes for pre- and post-PCR reaction set-up, laminar flow hoods, and personal protective equipment.

Preparation of Reagents

Primer/probe concentrations of 900/200 nM were used in the TaqMan reactions to detect mutations in the PIK3CA, BRAF, NRAS, and AKT genes. Custom AS-PCR assays (Roche Molecular Systems) were used to detect mutations in KRAS and EGFR genes along with custom wild-type assays for both genes. A complete description of primers and probes for the TaqMan reactions is presented in table S2. A commercially available EGFR Mutation Test (Roche Molecular Systems) was modified to achieve compatibility with the two-color BioMark readout (FAM and VIC) for detection of mutations in EGFR. Hexachlorofluorescein (HEX)-labeled probes were spiked into kit mastermixes to detect S768I and T790M in the VIC channel. Additionally, a custom fourth tube was designed to separately detect exon 20 insertion mutations using MMX3 from the RMS EGFR Mutation Test. The KRAS allele-specific assays utilized a research kit from Roche Molecular Systems. Both TaqMan and AS-PCR assays were carried out using the AS1 qPCR master mix. Rox dye (final concentration 55 nM) for signal normalization and 20x gel electrophoresis sample loading buffer (Fluidigm Corp.) were added to the qPCR reactions. Assays along with AS1 qPCR master mix were run in duplicate by loading 5 µl into each well of the primed 96.96 Fluidigm Chip. The diluted preamplified DNA samples were mixed with equal volumes of 2x DNA assay loading buffer (Fluidigm Corp.). The samples were run by loading 5 µl into each well on the chip. The chip was then placed in the integrated fluidic circuit controller and loaded before analysis with the BioMark reader. The following thermal cycling protocol was used: 50°C (2 minutes), 70°C (30 minutes), 25°C (10 min), 50°C (2 minutes), and 95°C (4 minutes). This was followed by 40 cycles of 95°C (10 seconds) and 61°C (30 seconds). The initial cycle [50°C (2 minutes), 70°C (30 minutes), 25°C (10 minutes)] is part of the protocol recommended by Fluidigm for the 96.96 chip to ensure sufficient mixing of the reagents. Data were analyzed and cycle threshold (CT) values were determined using BioMark real-time PCR analysis software (Fluidigm Corp.), and automated mutation calling was carried out using an algorithm based on the change in CT (ΔCT) values between wild-type and mutant or between control and mutant, for TaqMan and AS-PCR assays, respectively.

Six-Gene Mutation Panel

The use of MUT-MAP in this study allowed the screening of 71 mutations across the EGFR, KRAS, PIK3CA, NRAS, BRAF, and AKT1 genes. The mutation coverage of this panel is presented in tables 1 and 2. Validation of mutations detected in clinical samples was performed using commercial mutation detection assays (Qiagen DxS assays for PIK3CA, KRAS, and EGFR mutations), and in-house developed and validated TaqMan assays (for BRAF, NRAS, and AKT1).
Table 1

Mutation Coverage Breakdown by Gene.

Six-Gene Mutation Coverage by TaqMan and Prototype EGFR and KRAS AS-PCR Assays
GeneMutation CountExonMutation IDcDNA Mutation PositionAmino Acid Mutation Position
EGFR 431862522155 G>AG719S
62532155 G>TG719C
62392156 G>CG719A
19See table 2 for EGFR exon 19 deletion mutation coverage
2062412303 G>TS768I
123762307_2308 ins 9(gccagcgtg)V769_D770insASV
135582309_2310 complex(ac>ccagcgtggat)V769_D770insASV
123782310_2311 ins GGTD770_N771insG
134282311_2312 ins 9(gcgtggaca)D770_N771insSVD
123772319_2320 ins CACH773_V774insH
62402369 C>TT790M
2162242573 T>GL858R
124292573–2574 TG>GTL858R
62132582 T>AL861Q
PIK3CA 497601624 G>AE542K
7631633 G>AE545K
207753140 A>GH1047L
7763140 A>TH1047R
KRAS 18252235 G>CG12A
51634 G>TG12C
52135 G>AG12D
51734 G>AG12S
51834 G>CG12R
52035 G>TG12V
51234_35 GG>TTG13D
53238 G>AG12F
53338 G>CG13A
52737 G>TG13C
52937 G>CG13R
52837 G>AG13S
53438 G>TG13V
3554183 A>CQ61H
555183 A>TQ61H
549181 C>AQ61K
553182 A>TQ61L
552182 A>GQ61R
BRAF 1154761799 T>Ap.V600E
NRAS 4256438 G>Ap.G13D
580181 C>Ap.Q61K
3584182 A>Gp.Q61R
583182 A>Tp.Q61L
AKT1 143376549 G>Ap.E17K
Table 2

Mutation Coverage for EGFR Exon 19 Deletions.

EGFR Exon 19 Deletion Mutations Covered byPrototype EGFR AS-PCR Assays
Mutation CountMutation IDcDNA Mutation PositionAmino Acid Mutation Position
30260382233_2247del15K745_E749del
135502235_2248>AATTCE746_A750>IP
62232235_2249del15E746_A750del
135522235_2251>AATTCE746_T751>IP
135512235_2252>AATE746_T751>I
123852235_2255>AATE746_S752>I
124132236_2248>AGACE746_A750>RP
62252236_2250del15E746_A750del
127282236_2253del18E746_T751del
126782237_2251del15E746_T751>A
123862237_2252>TE746_T751>V
124162237_2253>TTGCTE746_T751>VA
123672237_2254del18E746_S752>A
123842237_2255>TE746_S752>V
184272237_2257>TCTE746_P753>VS
124222238_2248>GCL747_A750>P
235712238_2252del15L747_T751del
124192238_2252>GCAL747_T751>Q
62202238_2255del18E746_S752>D
62182239_2247del9L747_E749del
123822239_2248TTAAGAGAAG>CL747_A750>P
123832239_2251>CL747_T751>P
62542239_2253del15L747_T751del
62552239_2256del18L747_S752del
124032239_2256>CAAL747_S752>Q
123872239_2258>CAL747_P753>Q
62102240_2251del12L747_T751>S
123692240_2254del15L747_T751del
123702240_2257del18L747_P753>S
135562253_2276del24S752_I759del

Results

Plasmid Validation

A series of validation experiments was carried out to confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of the microfluidic assay panel. In order to validate the discrimination of closely related sequences by the mutation screening panel, a complete cross-reactivity analysis was conducted by screening every mutant plasmid target against every mutant-specific assay. The CT values were generated by the BioMark real-time PCR analysis software (Fluidigm Corp.) and plotted as shown in tables 3, 4, and 5. A CT value of 30.0 represents no reactivity, and is indicative of the absence of that allele from the sample. Deviations from this baseline represent assay reactivity, with a lower CT value indicative of increased reactivity. The CT values generated by mutant-specific assays on their corresponding mutant plasmid targets are highlighted in boxed cells (Tables 3, 4, and 5).
Table 3

Cross-Reactivity of AKT1, BRAF, PIK3CA, and NRAS Mutants.

AssaysPlasmid controls AKT1, BRAF, PIK3CA, and NRAS Controls
Ak_E17KBr_V600EPk_E542KPk_E545KPk_H1047RPk_H1047LNr_Q61KNr_Q61RNr_Q61LNr_G12DgDNANTC
RNaseP 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 11.5 30.0
AKT_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 15.8 30.0
AKT_E17K 20.0 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0
Br_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 13.1 30.0
Br_V600E 30.0 22.4 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0
Pk_E542_WT 30.030.030.020.630.030.030.030.030.030.0 15.5 30.0
Pk_E542K 30.030.0 16.6 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0
Pk_E545_WT 30.030.015.3a 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 12.9 30.0
Pk_E545K 30.030.030.0 17.2 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0
Pk_H1047_WT 30.030.030.030.030.020.030.030.030.030.0 12.0 30.0
Pk_H1047R 30.030.030.030.0 15.7 19.1a 30.030.030.030.030.030.0
Pk_H1047_WT 30.030.030.030.030.026.530.030.030.030.0 12.1 30.0
Pk_H1047L 30.030.030.030.030.0 16.9 30.030.030.030.030.030.0
Nr_Q61_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 10.5 30.0
Nr_Q61K 30.030.030.030.030.030.0 19.1 30.030.030.030.030.0
Nr_Q61_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 10.6 30.0
Nr_Q61R 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 22.0 30.030.030.030.0
Nr_Q61_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 10.6 30.0
Nr_Q61L 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 17.1 30.030.030.0
Nr_G12_WT 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.016.2a 10.5 30.0
Nr_G12D 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 16.7 30.030.0

Cross-reactions between the assays are unidirectional and hence do not interfere with accurate mutation calls.

Table 4

Cross-Reactivity of KRAS Mutants.

AssaysPlasmid Controls KRAS Controls
Kr_ G12SKr_ G12CKr_ G12RKr_ G12DKr_ G12VKr_ G12AKr G12FKr_ G13SKr_ G13CKr_ G13RKr_ G13DKr_ G13VKr_ G13AKr_ Q61KKr_ Q61LKr_ Q61RKr_ Q61HcKr_ Q61HtgDNANTC
Kr_cntrl 12.1 12.2 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.4 13.1 12.5 12.6 12.0 13.3 11.6 12.3 12.9 12.4 12.6 13.0 12.9 10.4 30.0
Kr_G12S 14.3 24.828.028.326.625.730.025.827.726.126.425.725.824.224.624.726.727.323.930.0
Kr_G12C 24.9 14.6 24.229.427.929.117.6a 26.928.927.930.030.029.626.428.728.928.530.025.630.0
Kr_G12R 28.724.2 14.2 29.830.028.230.030.028.926.030.028.230.028.430.029.429.028.328.530.0
Kr_G12D 27.628.523.8 13.6 24.828.130.025.225.224.525.324.925.725.024.825.025.927.422.930.0
Kr_G12V 18.223.425.813.7a 13.8 22.720.324.224.324.823.523.922.922.623.323.123.823.421.030.0
Kr_G12A 27.426.221.825.022.8 14.1 30.028.630.024.827.128.726.928.628.427.628.129.625.330.0
Kr_G12F 30.023.430.030.020.029.3 13.1 30.030.030.030.030.030.028.330.029.330.030.029.830.0
Kr_G13S 15.8a 22.922.124.522.125.026.4 13.3 23.824.724.022.722.923.323.022.824.424.221.430.0
Kr_G13C 17.324.824.722.413.0a 22.024.123.8 13.3 22.423.923.723.722.722.423.023.123.120.530.0
Kr_G13R 24.926.629.927.723.328.029.825.922.6 13.3 28.016.926.530.028.630.028.530.026.530.0
Kr_G13D 29.429.028.219.923.723.930.030.029.129.9 15.0 25.428.122.822.823.323.723.621.430.0
Kr_G13V 25.520.526.018.525.826.828.029.324.830.024.3 12.9 20.226.225.925.026.726.123.930.0
Kr_G13A 23.622.123.417.020.220.524.721.613.9a 20.026.721.7 12.9 21.521.321.422.021.919.530.0
Kr_Q61K 26.727.827.426.627.326.527.925.527.525.029.125.225.8 15.9 30.030.030.030.025.330.0
Kr_Q61L 28.228.927.326.328.028.428.326.827.927.129.926.427.428.7 16.5 28.630.029.825.430.0
Kr_Q61R 26.426.826.827.027.227.426.425.327.325.128.324.625.328.523.6 15.4 27.827.024.230.0
Kr_Q61Hc 30.030.029.529.630.030.029.629.730.029.330.029.330.030.030.026.6 17.1 26.627.530.0
Kr_Q61Ht 28.027.429.227.127.029.528.026.228.425.429.625.625.926.828.426.528.8 16.0 24.830.0

Cross-reactions between the assays are unidirectional and hence do not interfere with accurate mutation calls.

Table 5

Cross-Reactivity of EGFR Mutants.

AssaysPlasmid Controls EGFR Controls
Eg_ex28Eg_19delEg_S768IEg_L858REg_T790MEg_L861QEg_G719XEg_insgDNANTC
Eg_ex20_Cntrl 30.030.0 15.2 30.0 17.4 30.030.0 14.1 11.8 30.0
Eg_ex28_Cntrl 13.0 30.030.030.030.030.030.030.0 10.1 30.0
Eg_19del 30.0 13.6 30.030.030.030.030.030.024.030.0
Eg_S768I 30.030.0 15.0 30.030.030.030.028.926.430.0
Eg_L858R 30.030.030.0 18.1 30.030.030.030.027.330.0
Eg_T790M 30.030.024.830.0 17.1 30.030.030.023.030.0
Eg_L861Q 30.030.030.026.130.0 15.7 30.030.023.230.0
Eg_G719X 30.030.030.030.030.030.0 18.5 30.026.530.0
Eg_ins 30.030.030.030.029.530.030.0 13.3 23.030.0

Eg_ex20_Cntrl assay detects exon 20. Hence EGFR exon 20 plasmids carrying S7681, T790M, and insertion mutations are detected.

Cross-reactions between the assays are unidirectional and hence do not interfere with accurate mutation calls. Cross-reactions between the assays are unidirectional and hence do not interfere with accurate mutation calls. Eg_ex20_Cntrl assay detects exon 20. Hence EGFR exon 20 plasmids carrying S7681, T790M, and insertion mutations are detected. The CT values and cross-reactivities obtained from the plasmid data were instrumental in generating an automated mutation-calling algorithm to detect the presence or absence of mutations in clinical samples for each of the six genes in the panel. Samples were re-run on multiple chips to validate both intra- and inter-chip reproducibility. In general, all samples were correctly identified with high reproducibility and no confounding cross-reactivity. Where cross-reactivity did occur, it was generally an easily discriminated partial reaction. For example, in the TaqMan assays, the cross-reactivity observed between alleles such as PIK3CA E545 wild-type and E542K can be attributed to cross-reactivity of probes with highly similar sequences. In the KRAS AS-PCR assays, cross-reactivity is likely due to sequence content at the 3′ end of the primer sequences. The unidirectional nature of these cross-reactions made it easy to build an algorithm to classify mutation status.

Validation of Cell Line Samples

For cell lines and clinical samples, gene-specific custom algorithms were written, taking into account the control CT and the mutant CT values. Samples showing ΔCT <6 were classified as positive for the specific mutation. A series of 51 cell lines was screened to detect mutations across the six genes (Table 6). These mutation calls were compared with published characteristics of these cell lines, from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) [21].
Table 6

Correlation Between Mutation Calls in Cell Lines and Those Reported in the Literature.

Six-Gene Mutation Panel
Cosmic IDSamples AKT1 BRAF PIK3CA NRAS KRAS EGFR
1286013MGH-U3 E17K MNDMNDMNDMNDMND
905954SK-MEL-28MND V600E MNDMNDMNDMND
909747SW1417MND V600E MNDMNDMNDMND
905988MDA-MB-435MND V600E MNDMNDMNDMND
906844DU4475MND V600E MNDMNDMNDMND
908125MEL-JUSOMNDMNDMND Q61L MNDMND
910926BFTCMNDMNDMND Q61L MNDMND
724831H1299MNDMNDMND Q61K MNDMND
905955SKMEL–2MNDMNDMND Q61R MNDMND
909771THP-1MNDMNDMND G12D MNDMND
1018466BT483MNDMND E542K MNDMNDMND
905946MCF-7MNDMND E545K MNDMNDMND
908121MDA-MB-361MNDMND E545K MNDMNDMND
906851EFM19MNDMND H1047L MNDMNDMND
905945T-47DMNDMND H1047R MNDMNDMND
905945T-47DMNDMND H1047R MNDMNDMND
910948MFM-223MNDMND H1047R MNDMNDMND
908122MDA-MB-453MNDMND H1047R MNDMNDMND
909778UACC-893MNDMND H1047R MNDMNDMND
1479574LS180MNDMND H1047R MND G12D MND
905949A549MNDMNDMNDMND G12S MND
905942NCI-H23MNDMNDMNDMND G12C MND
910546PSN-1MNDMNDMNDMND G12R MND
910702AsPC-1MNDMNDMNDMND G12D MND
908122SW403MNDMNDMNDMND G12V MND
753624CAPAN-1MNDMNDMNDMND G12V MND
724873NCI-H2009MNDMNDMNDMND G12A MND
907790LoVoMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MND
905960MDA-MB-231MNDMNDMNDMND G13D MND
907790LOVOMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MND
687800NCI-H1650MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
1028938HCC4006MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
1028936HCC827MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
1336875pC9MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
924244NCI-H1975MNDMNDMNDMNDMND L858R/T790M
909751SW48MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G719X
905934PC-3MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
910781AN3 CAMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
687804NCI-H1770MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
905947786-OMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
908471NCI-H1581MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
908481NCI-H2196MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
909907ZR-75-30MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
688015NCI-H2171MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
905986SF-268MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
749712HCC1395MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND
749714HCC1937MNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND

MND, mutation not detected.

MND, mutation not detected.

Validation with FFPE Samples

The assay was further validated using clinical FFPE samples harboring known mutations in the genes of interest. A series of 33 FFPE tumor biopsy samples were analyzed by the six-gene mutation panel. Results were compared with data from traditional micro-well plate qPCR assays: mutations in EGFR, KRAS, and PIK3CA were confirmed using Qiagen DxS assays whereas mutations in BRAF, NRAS, and AKT1 were validated with custom in-house-validated TaqMan assays. Execution of the experiments was notably faster with the multiplex assay than with the traditional methods. The MUT-MAP system also required only 20–100 ng DNA compared with 0.5–1 µg DNA for traditional assays (Qiagen DxS assays) covering the same set of mutations. A good correlation was observed between the experimental results and the traditional mutation detection assays (Table 7). Where samples were available, all outputs were in agreement. The discrepant sample HP-45416 (lung) was not tested for the EGFR T790M mutation as the Qiagen DxS assays did not carry the T790M assay at the time of the study, and retesting is not possible due to lack of additional sample material.
Table 7

Correlation Between Mutation Calls in FFPE Samples and Those Determined by TaqMan/Qiagen DxS Assays.

SamplesTissuesSix-Gene Mutation PanelTaqMan/Qiagen DxS
AKT1 BRAF PIK3CA NRAS KRAS EGFR AKT1 BRAF PIK3CA NRAS KRAS EGFR
HP-40263COMND V600E H1047R MNDMNDMNDMND V600E _aMNDMNDMND
HP-41677CO E17K V600E MNDMNDMNDMND_a V600E MNDMNDMNDMND
HP-30630COMND V600E E542K MNDMNDMNDMND_a E542K MNDMNDMND
HP-29630COMND V600E E545K MNDMNDMNDMND_a E545K MNDMNDMND
HP-31183NOSMNDMND E545K MND Q61R MNDMNDMND E545K MND_aMND
HP-32064NOSMNDMND H1047R MND G12D MNDMNDMND H1047R MND G12D MND
HP-33002NOSMNDMND E545K MND G12C MNDMNDMND E545K MND G12C MND
HP-30760NOSMNDMND E545K MND G12S MNDMNDMND E545K MND G12S MND
HP-30626COMNDMND E542K MND G12V MNDMNDMND E542K MND G12V MND
HP-40224COMNDMNDMND Q61R MNDMNDMNDMNDMND Q61R MNDMND
HP-41675COMNDMNDMND Q61K MNDMNDMNDMNDMND Q61K MNDMND
HP-40253COMNDMNDMNDMND G12A MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12A MND
HP-32864NOSMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MND
HP-44508COMNDMNDMNDMND G12D MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12D MND
HP-40092COMNDMNDMNDMND G12D MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12D MND
HP-30770NOSMNDMNDMNDMND G12R MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12R MND
HP-41699COMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MND
HP-32201NOSMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12C MND
HP-41676COMNDMND E545K MND G12S MNDMNDMND_aMND G12S MND
HP-40264COMNDMNDMNDMND G12S MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12S MND
HP-40122COMNDMNDMNDMND G12V MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12V MND
HP-41713COMNDMNDMNDMND G12V MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G12V MND
HP-40249COMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MND
HP-32375NOSMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MNDMNDMNDMNDMND G13D MND
HP-45416LUMNDMNDMNDMNDMND L858R/T790M MNDMNDMNDMNDMND L858R
HP-45863NOSMNDMNDMNDMNDMND L858R MNDMNDMNDMNDMND L858R
HP-46155LUMNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
HP-44217NOSMNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
HP-44217NOSMNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
HP-46155LUMNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del MNDMNDMNDMNDMND 19del
HP-29847COMNDMND E545K MND G12A MNDMNDMND E545K MND G12A MND
HP-30384COMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMNDMND

MND, mutation not detected.

CO, Adenocarcinoma of Colon.

LU, Adenocarcinoma of Lung.

NOS, Not otherwise specified.

_a, Insufficient DNA to complete analysis.

MND, mutation not detected. CO, Adenocarcinoma of Colon. LU, Adenocarcinoma of Lung. NOS, Not otherwise specified. _a, Insufficient DNA to complete analysis.

Sample Input Titrations

In order to confirm the reproducibility and consistency of the methodology, sample input titrations were carried out. To define the effective DNA input concentration over which the assay could be considered accurate, and identify the wild-type and mutant CT values for each gene, DNA input was varied for plasmids, cell lines, and FFPE samples, with sample preamplification (Table 8). The CT values for both the mutant and wild-type show the expected response to input concentration over the titration range.
Table 8

Sample Input Titrations: Effect on Assay Performance.

Plasmid DNAMutation StatusFg PlasmidWild-type CT Mutant CT
Plasmid #1Pk_E542K1003012.28
103015.71
13018.55
Plasmid #2Pk_E545K1003013.23
103016.23
13019.98
Plasmid #3Pk_H1047R1003011.02
103015.33
13019.12
Plasmid #4Pk_H1047L1003013.63
103017.50
13021.37
FFPE DNA Mutation Status DNA (ng) Wild-type CT Mutant CT ΔCT
HP-30770Kr_G12R16010.6615.875.21
4012.6617.885.23
1014.4819.995.51
HP-30630Pk_E542K16014.8115.210.40
4016.6416.680.04
1018.6018.930.33
Cell Line DNA Mutation Status DNA (ng) Wild-type CT Mutant CT ΔCT
MGH-U3Ak_E17K12012.0111.44−0.57
1515.2315.17−0.06

Platform Reproducibility Validation

The reproducibility of data from mutation detection assays was also evaluated by the comparison of duplicate experiments. The inter- and intra-chip variability in assay CT values was assessed as shown in figure 2. A total of 5664 duplicate pairs were mapped on a scatter plot, and the Pearson correlation coefficient (R 2) was calculated. The R 2 values were found to be over 0.99 for FAM as well as VIC channels, indicating excellent inter- and intra-chip reproducibility of data generated by the assay.
Figure 2

Inter- and Intra-Chip Reproducibility Titrations.

The MUT-MAP panel qPCR assays were run in duplicate and CT outputs were plotted to determine both inter- and intra-chip reproducibility. Data for a typical mutation panel run are shown, with R2 correlations of 0.9939 and 0.9909 for inter- and intra-chip reproducibility, respectively.

Inter- and Intra-Chip Reproducibility Titrations.

The MUT-MAP panel qPCR assays were run in duplicate and CT outputs were plotted to determine both inter- and intra-chip reproducibility. Data for a typical mutation panel run are shown, with R2 correlations of 0.9939 and 0.9909 for inter- and intra-chip reproducibility, respectively.

Discussion

The future of oncology biomarker detection can be delivered by many promising technologies, including multiplexed protein assays, and parallel next-generation genome sequencing [22], [23]. The limited maturity of many of these techniques, combined with their timescale and infrastructure demands, means that there is an unmet need for robust high-throughput biomarker detection methods in the clinical drug development setting. Our validation has demonstrated that MUT-MAP offers a means of detecting a wide range of mutations in a panel of therapeutically relevant genes, enabling the detection of predictive and prognostic biomarkers from very small amounts of sample DNA. A cross-reactivity analysis showed that this platform has the ability to reliably discriminate between closely related mutations. In addition, the ability of the assay to provide robust reproducible data has been validated in both cancer cell lines and FFPE biopsy samples using considerably smaller amounts of sample DNA than traditional assays. Such an approach enables the study of a wide range of oncogenic mutations in precious clinical samples with very little tissue available for analysis. As mutations previously thought to be unique to particular tumor types have been shown to be present across a range of cancers (Sanger COSMIC database [24]), the six-gene sample panel used here could be applied to multiple clinical and preclinical studies. The parallel detection of multiple mutations in a single sample also supports biomarker development for combination treatment regimens, where previous analyses would have taken place independently. Parallel analysis also removes the need for sample tracking over multiple assays, which arises with traditional screening methods. The process is further optimized for clinical research and clinical trials by the availability of commercial kit components, facilitating adaptation of this technique to select patients for experimental therapeutic regimens based on gene mutation biomarker combinations which are identified using the multiplex approach. In addition to biomarker mapping in the clinical setting, MUT-MAP will enable the retrospective analysis of stored FFPE samples, allowing additional data to be obtained from previous studies and possibly identifying previously unknown biomarker associations. The AS-PCR component of the assay uses proprietary primer modifications and an enzyme screened for improved mismatch discrimination. This enables the high level of sensitivity demonstrated in our study and allows us to multiplex allele-specific assays. This sensitivity enables the accurate and reliable identification of mutation status in multiple genes, from poor-quality, low-mass, preserved clinical samples, thereby allowing the maximum amount of data to be obtained from each sample, and repeat experiments to be conducted from the same biopsy. This capability has exciting potential for the future study of low-yield exploratory biomarkers such as circulating tumor DNA [25]. This highly flexible platform can be used to detect mutations beyond the six genes included in this study; in addition, the precise quantification of each amplicon opens up the possibility of being able to detect copy number variations. Most significantly, however, the MUT-MAP assay can form the basis for the development of a platform to support efficient biomarker discovery and validation in support of detection and personalized healthcare. Preamplification Primer Sequences. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file. TaqMan and Mutation Detection Assays. (DOCX) Click here for additional data file.
  23 in total

1.  Predictive biomarkers of sensitivity to the phosphatidylinositol 3' kinase inhibitor GDC-0941 in breast cancer preclinical models.

Authors:  Carol O'Brien; Jeffrey J Wallin; Deepak Sampath; Debraj GuhaThakurta; Heidi Savage; Elizabeth A Punnoose; Jane Guan; Leanne Berry; Wei Wei Prior; Lukas C Amler; Marcia Belvin; Lori S Friedman; Mark R Lackner
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Practical implications of gene-expression-based assays for breast oncologists.

Authors:  Aleix Prat; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  The Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC).

Authors:  S A Forbes; G Bhamra; S Bamford; E Dawson; C Kok; J Clements; A Menzies; J W Teague; P A Futreal; M R Stratton
Journal:  Curr Protoc Hum Genet       Date:  2008-04

Review 4.  Methodological and practical challenges for personalized cancer therapies.

Authors:  Ignacio I Wistuba; Juri G Gelovani; Jörg J Jacoby; Suzanne E Davis; Roy S Herbst
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Genotyping for Functionally Important Human CYP2D6*4 (B) Mutation Using TaqMan Probes.

Authors:  M M Shi; S P Myrand; M R Bleavins; F A de la Iglesia
Journal:  Methods Mol Med       Date:  2001

6.  KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Astrid Lièvre; Jean-Baptiste Bachet; Delphine Le Corre; Valérie Boige; Bruno Landi; Jean-François Emile; Jean-François Côté; Gorana Tomasic; Christophe Penna; Michel Ducreux; Philippe Rougier; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Pierre Laurent-Puig
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2006-04-15       Impact factor: 12.701

7.  Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib.

Authors:  Thomas J Lynch; Daphne W Bell; Raffaella Sordella; Sarada Gurubhagavatula; Ross A Okimoto; Brian W Brannigan; Patricia L Harris; Sara M Haserlat; Jeffrey G Supko; Frank G Haluska; David N Louis; David C Christiani; Jeff Settleman; Daniel A Haber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Detection of specific polymerase chain reaction product by utilizing the 5'----3' exonuclease activity of Thermus aquaticus DNA polymerase.

Authors:  P M Holland; R D Abramson; R Watson; D H Gelfand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1991-08-15       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Gene expression profiles from formalin fixed paraffin embedded breast cancer tissue are largely comparable to fresh frozen matched tissue.

Authors:  Lorenza Mittempergher; Jorma J de Ronde; Marja Nieuwland; Ron M Kerkhoven; Iris Simon; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Laura J Van't Veer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-02-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The proteomics of colorectal cancer: identification of a protein signature associated with prognosis.

Authors:  Donna O'Dwyer; Lynda D Ralton; Aisling O'Shea; Graeme I Murray
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-18       Impact factor: 3.240
View more
  13 in total

1.  A Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Pictilisib in Combination with Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Stephen Leong; Rebecca A Moss; Daniel W Bowles; Joseph A Ware; Jing Zhou; Jill M Spoerke; Mark R Lackner; Geetha Shankar; Jennifer L Schutzman; Ruud van der Noll; Emile E Voest; Jan H M Schellens
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-08-10

2.  A spontaneous thermo-sensitive female sterility mutation in rice enables fully mechanized hybrid breeding.

Authors:  Haoxuan Li; Chenjiang You; Manabu Yoshikawa; Xiaoyu Yang; Haiyong Gu; Chuanguo Li; Jie Cui; Xuemei Chen; Nenghui Ye; Jianhua Zhang; Guanqun Wang
Journal:  Cell Res       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 46.297

3.  A first-in-human phase I study to evaluate the MEK1/2 inhibitor, cobimetinib, administered daily in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Authors:  Lee S Rosen; Patricia LoRusso; Wen Wee Ma; Jonathan W Goldman; Amy Weise; A Dimitrios Colevas; Alex Adjei; Salim Yazji; Angela Shen; Stuart Johnston; Hsin-Ju Hsieh; Iris T Chan; Branimir I Sikic
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2016-07-16       Impact factor: 3.850

4.  Profiling cancer gene mutations in clinical formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded colorectal tumor specimens using targeted next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Liangxuan Zhang; Liangjing Chen; Sachin Sah; Gary J Latham; Rajesh Patel; Qinghua Song; Hartmut Koeppen; Rachel Tam; Erica Schleifman; Haider Mashhedi; Sreedevi Chalasani; Ling Fu; Teiko Sumiyoshi; Rajiv Raja; William Forrest; Garret M Hampton; Mark R Lackner; Priti Hegde; Shidong Jia
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2014-03-24

5.  Phase I Study of Apitolisib (GDC-0980), Dual Phosphatidylinositol-3-Kinase and Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Kinase Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Saoirse O Dolly; Andrew J Wagner; Johanna C Bendell; Hedy L Kindler; Lee M Krug; Tanguy Y Seiwert; Marjorie G Zauderer; Martijn P Lolkema; Doris Apt; Ru-Fang Yeh; Jill O Fredrickson; Jill M Spoerke; Hartmut Koeppen; Joseph A Ware; Jennifer O Lauchle; Howard A Burris; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Next generation MUT-MAP, a high-sensitivity high-throughput microfluidics chip-based mutation analysis panel.

Authors:  Erica B Schleifman; Rachel Tam; Rajesh Patel; Alison Tsan; Teiko Sumiyoshi; Ling Fu; Rupal Desai; Nancy Schoenbrunner; Thomas W Myers; Keith Bauer; Edward Smith; Rajiv Raja
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  The evolving genomic classification of lung cancer.

Authors:  David S Shames; Ignacio I Wistuba
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 7.996

8.  Acquired PIK3CA amplification causes resistance to selective phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitors in breast cancer.

Authors:  L-Y Huw; C O'Brien; A Pandita; S Mohan; J M Spoerke; S Lu; Y Wang; G M Hampton; T R Wilson; M R Lackner
Journal:  Oncogenesis       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 7.485

9.  Targeted biomarker profiling of matched primary and metastatic estrogen receptor positive breast cancers.

Authors:  Erica B Schleifman; Rupal Desai; Jill M Spoerke; Yuanyuan Xiao; Cheryl Wong; Ilma Abbas; Carol O'Brien; Rajesh Patel; Teiko Sumiyoshi; Ling Fu; Rachel N Tam; Hartmut Koeppen; Timothy R Wilson; Rajiv Raja; Garret M Hampton; Mark R Lackner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  The molecular landscape of high-risk early breast cancer: comprehensive biomarker analysis of a phase III adjuvant population.

Authors:  Timothy R Wilson; Jianjun Yu; Xuyang Lu; Jill M Spoerke; Yuanyuan Xiao; Carol O'Brien; Heidi M Savage; Ling-Yuh Huw; Wei Zou; Hartmut Koeppen; William F Forrest; Jane Fridlyand; Ling Fu; Rachel Tam; Erica B Schleifman; Teiko Sumiyoshi; Luciana Molinero; Garret M Hampton; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; Mark R Lackner
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-07-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.