Hongdo Do1, Stephen Q Wong, Jason Li, Alexander Dobrovic. 1. Molecular Pathology Research and Development Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues are routinely used for detecting mutational biomarkers in patients with cancer. A previous intractable challenge with FFPE DNA in genetic testing has been the high number of artifactual single-nucleotide changes (SNCs), particularly for the detection of low-level mutations. Pretreatment of FFPE DNA with uracil-DNA glycosylase (UDG) can markedly reduce these C:G>T:A SNCs with a small panel of amplicons. This procedure has implications for massively parallel sequencing approaches to mutation detection from DNA. We investigated whether sequence artifacts were problematic in amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing and what effect UDG pretreatment had on reducing these artifacts. METHODS: We amplified selected amplicons from lung cancer FFPE DNAs using the TruSeq Cancer Panel. SNCs occurring at a frequency <10% were considered most likely to represent sequence artifacts and were enumerated for both UDG-treated and -untreated DNAs. RESULTS: Massively parallel sequencing of FFPE DNA samples showed multiple SNCs, predominantly C:G>T:A changes, with a significant proportion occurring above the background sequencing error (defined as 1%). UDG pretreatment markedly reduced C:G>T:A SNCs without affecting the detection of true somatic mutations. However, C:G>T:A changes within CpG dinucleotides were often resistant to the UDG treatment as a consequence of 5-methyl cytosine being deaminated to thymine rather than uracil. CONCLUSIONS: UDG pretreatment greatly facilitates the accurate discrimination of mutations in FFPE samples by use of amplicon-based approaches. This is particularly important when working with samples with low tumor purity or for the assessment of mutational heterogeneity in tumors.
BACKGROUND:Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues are routinely used for detecting mutational biomarkers in patients with cancer. A previous intractable challenge with FFPE DNA in genetic testing has been the high number of artifactual single-nucleotide changes (SNCs), particularly for the detection of low-level mutations. Pretreatment of FFPE DNA with uracil-DNA glycosylase (UDG) can markedly reduce these C:G>T:A SNCs with a small panel of amplicons. This procedure has implications for massively parallel sequencing approaches to mutation detection from DNA. We investigated whether sequence artifacts were problematic in amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing and what effect UDG pretreatment had on reducing these artifacts. METHODS: We amplified selected amplicons from lung cancer FFPE DNAs using the TruSeq Cancer Panel. SNCs occurring at a frequency <10% were considered most likely to represent sequence artifacts and were enumerated for both UDG-treated and -untreated DNAs. RESULTS: Massively parallel sequencing of FFPE DNA samples showed multiple SNCs, predominantly C:G>T:A changes, with a significant proportion occurring above the background sequencing error (defined as 1%). UDG pretreatment markedly reduced C:G>T:A SNCs without affecting the detection of true somatic mutations. However, C:G>T:A changes within CpG dinucleotides were often resistant to the UDG treatment as a consequence of 5-methyl cytosine being deaminated to thymine rather than uracil. CONCLUSIONS:UDG pretreatment greatly facilitates the accurate discrimination of mutations in FFPE samples by use of amplicon-based approaches. This is particularly important when working with samples with low tumor purity or for the assessment of mutational heterogeneity in tumors.
Authors: Angela Hamblin; Sarah Wordsworth; Jilles M Fermont; Suzanne Page; Kulvinder Kaur; Carme Camps; Pamela Kaisaki; Avinash Gupta; Denis Talbot; Mark Middleton; Shirley Henderson; Anthony Cutts; Dimitrios V Vavoulis; Nick Housby; Ian Tomlinson; Jenny C Taylor; Anna Schuh Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Zongli Zheng; Matthew Liebers; Boryana Zhelyazkova; Yi Cao; Divya Panditi; Kerry D Lynch; Juxiang Chen; Hayley E Robinson; Hyo Sup Shim; Juliann Chmielecki; William Pao; Jeffrey A Engelman; A John Iafrate; Long Phi Le Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Marija Debeljak; Michael Noë; Stacy L Riel; Lisa M Haley; Alexis L Norris; Derek A Anderson; Emily M Adams; Masaya Suenaga; Katie F Beierl; Ming-Tseh Lin; Michael G Goggins; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Beth A Marosy; Brian D Craig; Kurt N Hetrick; P Dane Witmer; Hua Ling; Sean M Griffith; Benjamin Myers; Elaine A Ostrander; Janet L Stanford; Lawrence C Brody; Kimberly F Doheny Journal: Curr Protoc Hum Genet Date: 2017-01-11
Authors: Daoud Sie; Peter J F Snijders; Gerrit A Meijer; Marije W Doeleman; Marinda I H van Moorsel; Hendrik F van Essen; Paul P Eijk; Katrien Grünberg; Nicole C T van Grieken; Erik Thunnissen; Henk M Verheul; Egbert F Smit; Bauke Ylstra; Daniëlle A M Heideman Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Chia Wei Hsu; Mark L Sowers; Willie Hsu; Eduardo Eyzaguirre; Suimin Qiu; Celia Chao; Charles P Mouton; Yuri Fofanov; Pomila Singh; Lawrence C Sowers Journal: Trends Cancer Res Date: 2017