Literature DB >> 24211364

Performance of common analysis methods for detecting low-frequency single nucleotide variants in targeted next-generation sequence data.

David H Spencer1, Manoj Tyagi2, Francesco Vallania3, Andrew J Bredemeyer2, John D Pfeifer1, Rob D Mitra3, Eric J Duncavage4.   

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is becoming a common approach for clinical testing of oncology specimens for mutations in cancer genes. Unlike inherited variants, cancer mutations may occur at low frequencies because of contamination from normal cells or tumor heterogeneity and can therefore be challenging to detect using common NGS analysis tools, which are often designed for constitutional genomic studies. We generated high-coverage (>1000×) NGS data from synthetic DNA mixtures with variant allele fractions (VAFs) of 25% to 2.5% to assess the performance of four variant callers, SAMtools, Genome Analysis Toolkit, VarScan2, and SPLINTER, in detecting low-frequency variants. SAMtools had the lowest sensitivity and detected only 49% of variants with VAFs of approximately 25%; whereas the Genome Analysis Toolkit, VarScan2, and SPLINTER detected at least 94% of variants with VAFs of approximately 10%. VarScan2 and SPLINTER achieved sensitivities of 97% and 89%, respectively, for variants with observed VAFs of 1% to 8%, with >98% sensitivity and >99% positive predictive value in coding regions. Coverage analysis demonstrated that >500× coverage was required for optimal performance. The specificity of SPLINTER improved with higher coverage, whereas VarScan2 yielded more false positive results at high coverage levels, although this effect was abrogated by removing low-quality reads before variant identification. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of high-sensitivity variant callers with data from 15 clinical lung cancers.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24211364      PMCID: PMC3873500          DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.09.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  44 in total

1.  Detection of FLT3 internal tandem duplication and D835 mutations by a multiplex polymerase chain reaction and capillary electrophoresis assay.

Authors:  Kathleen M Murphy; Mark Levis; Michael J Hafez; Tanya Geiger; Lisa C Cooper; B Douglas Smith; Donald Small; Karin D Berg
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.568

2.  KIT exon 8 mutations associated with core-binding factor (CBF)-acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cause hyperactivation of the receptor in response to stem cell factor.

Authors:  Tobias M Kohl; Susanne Schnittger; Joachim W Ellwart; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Karsten Spiekermann
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2004-12-23       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  Comparison of clinical targeted next-generation sequence data from formalin-fixed and fresh-frozen tissue specimens.

Authors:  David H Spencer; Jennifer K Sehn; Haley J Abel; Mark A Watson; John D Pfeifer; Eric J Duncavage
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2013-06-26       Impact factor: 5.568

4.  Sensitive sequencing method for KRAS mutation detection by Pyrosequencing.

Authors:  Shuji Ogino; Takako Kawasaki; Mohan Brahmandam; Liying Yan; Mami Cantor; Chungdak Namgyal; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Gregory Y Lauwers; Massimo Loda; Charles S Fuchs
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.568

5.  Molecular alterations in tumors and response to combination chemotherapy with gefitinib for advanced colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Shuji Ogino; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Mami Cantor; Mohan Brahmandam; Jeffrey W Clark; Chungdak Namgyal; Takako Kawasaki; Kate Kinsella; Ann L Michelini; Peter C Enzinger; Matthew H Kulke; David P Ryan; Massimo Loda; Charles S Fuchs
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-09-15       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  The presence of a FLT3 internal tandem duplication in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) adds important prognostic information to cytogenetic risk group and response to the first cycle of chemotherapy: analysis of 854 patients from the United Kingdom Medical Research Council AML 10 and 12 trials.

Authors:  P D Kottaridis; R E Gale; M E Frew; G Harrison; S E Langabeer; A A Belton; H Walker; K Wheatley; D T Bowen; A K Burnett; A H Goldstone; D C Linch
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2001-09-15       Impact factor: 22.113

7.  Efficacy and safety of a specific inhibitor of the BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  B J Druker; M Talpaz; D J Resta; B Peng; E Buchdunger; J M Ford; N B Lydon; H Kantarjian; R Capdeville; S Ohno-Jones; C L Sawyers
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2001-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  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

9.  Nucleophosmin gene mutations are predictors of favorable prognosis in acute myelogenous leukemia with a normal karyotype.

Authors:  Susanne Schnittger; Claudia Schoch; Wolfgang Kern; Cristina Mecucci; Claudia Tschulik; Massimo F Martelli; Torsten Haferlach; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Brunangelo Falini
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2005-08-02       Impact factor: 22.113

10.  A strong candidate for the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1.

Authors:  Y Miki; J Swensen; D Shattuck-Eidens; P A Futreal; K Harshman; S Tavtigian; Q Liu; C Cochran; L M Bennett; W Ding
Journal:  Science       Date:  1994-10-07       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  47 in total

1.  Multiple Barriers to the Evolution of Alternative Gene Orders in a Positive-Strand RNA Virus.

Authors:  Anouk Willemsen; Mark P Zwart; Nicolas Tromas; Eszter Majer; José-Antonio Daròs; Santiago F Elena
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  A diagnosis of discernment: Identifying a novel ATRX mutation in myelodysplastic syndrome with acquired α-thalassemia.

Authors:  Jedrzej Wykretowicz; Yeohan Song; Brooke McKnight; Sung Won Choi; John Magenau; Radhika Takiar; Paul El Tomb; David Ginsburg; Dale Bixby; Rami Khoriaty
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2019-01-09

3.  Validation of a next-generation sequencing assay for clinical molecular oncology.

Authors:  Catherine E Cottrell; Hussam Al-Kateb; Andrew J Bredemeyer; Eric J Duncavage; David H Spencer; Haley J Abel; Christina M Lockwood; Ian S Hagemann; Stephanie M O'Guin; Lauren C Burcea; Christopher S Sawyer; Dayna M Oschwald; Jennifer L Stratman; Dorie A Sher; Mark R Johnson; Justin T Brown; Paul F Cliften; Bijoy George; Leslie D McIntosh; Savita Shrivastava; Tudung T Nguyen; Jacqueline E Payton; Mark A Watson; Seth D Crosby; Richard D Head; Robi D Mitra; Rakesh Nagarajan; Shashikant Kulkarni; Karen Seibert; Herbert W Virgin; Jeffrey Milbrandt; John D Pfeifer
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 4.  Guidelines for Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing-Based Oncology Panels: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists.

Authors:  Lawrence J Jennings; Maria E Arcila; Christopher Corless; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Ira M Lubin; John Pfeifer; Robyn L Temple-Smolkin; Karl V Voelkerding; Marina N Nikiforova
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 5.  Application of viromics: a new approach to the understanding of viral infections in humans.

Authors:  Mageshbabu Ramamurthy; Sathish Sankar; Rajesh Kannangai; Balaji Nandagopal; Gopalan Sridharan
Journal:  Virusdisease       Date:  2017-12-05

6.  Diagnostic Utility of Next-Generation Sequencing for Disorders of Somatic Mosaicism: A Five-Year Cumulative Cohort.

Authors:  Samantha N McNulty; Michael J Evenson; Meagan M Corliss; Latisha D Love-Gregory; Molly C Schroeder; Yang Cao; Yi-Shan Lee; Beth A Drolet; Julie A Neidich; Catherine E Cottrell; Jonathan W Heusel
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 11.025

7.  How does inflammation drive mutagenesis in colorectal cancer?

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

Review 8.  Deciphering intratumor heterogeneity using cancer genome analysis.

Authors:  Daeun Ryu; Je-Gun Joung; Nayoung K D Kim; Kyu-Tae Kim; Woong-Yang Park
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2016-04-28       Impact factor: 4.132

9.  Simulation of African and non-African low and high coverage whole genome sequence data to assess variant calling approaches.

Authors:  Shatha Alosaimi; Noëlle van Biljon; Denis Awany; Prisca K Thami; Joel Defo; Jacquiline W Mugo; Christian D Bope; Gaston K Mazandu; Nicola J Mulder; Emile R Chimusa
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 11.622

10.  Reducing amplification artifacts in high multiplex amplicon sequencing by using molecular barcodes.

Authors:  Quan Peng; Ravi Vijaya Satya; Marcus Lewis; Pranay Randad; Yexun Wang
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.