Stephen J Salipante1, Sheena M Scroggins1, Heather L Hampel2, Emily H Turner1, Colin C Pritchard3. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle WA; 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Human Genetics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle WA; cpritch@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a useful phenotype in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Nevertheless, methods to detect MSI status from next generation DNA sequencing (NGS) data are underdeveloped. METHODS: We developed an approach to detect the MSI phenotype using NGS (mSINGS). The method was used to evaluate mononucleotide microsatellite loci that were incidentally sequenced after targeted gene enrichment and could be applied to gene or exome capture panels designed for other purposes. For each microsatellite locus, the number of differently sized repeats in experimental samples were quantified and compared to a population of normal controls. Loci were considered unstable if the experimental number of repeats was statistically greater than in the control population. MSI status was determined by the fraction of unstable microsatellite loci. RESULTS: We examined data from 324 samples generated using targeted gene capture assays of 3 different sizes, ranging from a 0.85-Mb to a 44-Mb exome design and incorporating from 15 to 2957 microsatellite markers. When we compared mSING results to MSI-PCR as a gold standard for 108 cases, we found the approach to be both diagnostically sensitive (range of 96.4% to 100% across 3 panels) and specific (range of 97.2% to 100%) for determining MSI status. The fraction of unstable microsatellite markers calculated from sequencing data correlated with the number of unstable loci detected by conventional MSI-PCR testing. CONCLUSIONS: NGS data can enable highly accurate detection of MSI, even from limited capture designs. This novel approach offers several advantages over existing PCR-based methods.
BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a useful phenotype in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Nevertheless, methods to detect MSI status from next generation DNA sequencing (NGS) data are underdeveloped. METHODS: We developed an approach to detect the MSI phenotype using NGS (mSINGS). The method was used to evaluate mononucleotide microsatellite loci that were incidentally sequenced after targeted gene enrichment and could be applied to gene or exome capture panels designed for other purposes. For each microsatellite locus, the number of differently sized repeats in experimental samples were quantified and compared to a population of normal controls. Loci were considered unstable if the experimental number of repeats was statistically greater than in the control population. MSI status was determined by the fraction of unstable microsatellite loci. RESULTS: We examined data from 324 samples generated using targeted gene capture assays of 3 different sizes, ranging from a 0.85-Mb to a 44-Mb exome design and incorporating from 15 to 2957 microsatellite markers. When we compared mSING results to MSI-PCR as a gold standard for 108 cases, we found the approach to be both diagnostically sensitive (range of 96.4% to 100% across 3 panels) and specific (range of 97.2% to 100%) for determining MSI status. The fraction of unstable microsatellite markers calculated from sequencing data correlated with the number of unstable loci detected by conventional MSI-PCR testing. CONCLUSIONS: NGS data can enable highly accurate detection of MSI, even from limited capture designs. This novel approach offers several advantages over existing PCR-based methods.
Authors: Siwen Hu-Lieskovan; Srabani Bhaumik; Kavita Dhodapkar; Jean-Charles J B Grivel; Sumati Gupta; Brent A Hanks; Sylvia Janetzki; Thomas O Kleen; Yoshinobu Koguchi; Amanda W Lund; Cristina Maccalli; Yolanda D Mahnke; Ruslan D Novosiadly; Senthamil R Selvan; Tasha Sims; Yingdong Zhao; Holden T Maecker Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 13.751
Authors: Johanna Kondelin; Sari Tuupanen; Alexandra E Gylfe; Mervi Aavikko; Laura Renkonen-Sinisalo; Heikki Järvinen; Jan Böhm; Jukka-Pekka Mecklin; Claus L Andersen; Pia Vahteristo; Esa Pitkänen; Lauri A Aaltonen Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Luke K Genutis; Jerneja Tomsic; Ralf A Bundschuh; Pamela L Brock; Michelle D Williams; Sameek Roychowdhury; Julie W Reeser; Wendy L Frankel; Mohammed Alsomali; Mark J Routbort; Russell R Broaddus; Paul E Wakely; John E Phay; Christopher J Walker; Albert de la Chapelle Journal: Thyroid Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Jaclyn F Hechtman; Sumit Middha; Zsofia K Stadler; Ahmet Zehir; Michael F Berger; Efsevia Vakiani; Martin R Weiser; Marc Ladanyi; Leonard B Saltz; David S Klimstra; Jinru Shia Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Josep M Piulats; Marine Gross-Goupil; Jeffrey Goh; Kristiina Ojamaa; Christopher J Hoimes; Ulka Vaishampayan; Ranaan Berger; Ahmet Sezer; Tuomo Alanko; Ronald de Wit; Chunde Li; Aurelius Omlin; Giuseppe Procopio; Satoshi Fukasawa; Ken-Ichi Tabata; Se Hoon Park; Susan Feyerabend; Charles G Drake; Haiyan Wu; Ping Qiu; Jeri Kim; Christian Poehlein; Johann Sebastian de Bono Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zishuo I Hu; Jinru Shia; Zsofia K Stadler; Anna M Varghese; Marinela Capanu; Erin Salo-Mullen; Maeve A Lowery; Luis A Diaz; Diana Mandelker; Kenneth H Yu; Alice Zervoudakis; David P Kelsen; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; David S Klimstra; Leonard B Saltz; Ibrahim H Sahin; Eileen M O'Reilly Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Christopher J Walker; Mario A Miranda; Matthew J O'Hern; James S Blachly; Cassandra L Moyer; Jennifer Ivanovich; Karl W Kroll; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Caroline E Sapp; David G Mutch; David E Cohn; Ralf Bundschuh; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 4.878