Tyler F Beck1, James C Mullikin2, Leslie G Biesecker3. 1. National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD; 2. National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD; NIH Intramural Sequencing Center, Rockville, MD. 3. National Human Genome Research Institute, NIH, Bethesda, MD; lesb@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) data are used for both clinical care and clinical research. DNA sequence variants identified using NGS are often returned to patients/participants as part of clinical or research protocols. The current standard of care is to validate NGS variants using Sanger sequencing, which is costly and time-consuming. METHODS: We performed a large-scale, systematic evaluation of Sanger-based validation of NGS variants using data from the ClinSeq® project. We first used NGS data from 19 genes in 5 participants, comparing them to high-throughput Sanger sequencing results on the same samples, and found no discrepancies among 234 NGS variants. We then compared NGS variants in 5 genes from 684 participants against data from Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: Of over 5800 NGS-derived variants, 19 were not validated by Sanger data. Using newly designed sequencing primers, Sanger sequencing confirmed 17 of the NGS variants, and the remaining 2 variants had low quality scores from exome sequencing. Overall, we measured a validation rate of 99.965% for NGS variants using Sanger sequencing, which was higher than many existing medical tests that do not necessitate orthogonal validation. CONCLUSIONS: A single round of Sanger sequencing is more likely to incorrectly refute a true-positive variant from NGS than to correctly identify a false-positive variant from NGS. Validation of NGS-derived variants using Sanger sequencing has limited utility, and best practice standards should not include routine orthogonal Sanger validation of NGS variants.
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) data are used for both clinical care and clinical research. DNA sequence variants identified using NGS are often returned to patients/participants as part of clinical or research protocols. The current standard of care is to validate NGS variants using Sanger sequencing, which is costly and time-consuming. METHODS: We performed a large-scale, systematic evaluation of Sanger-based validation of NGS variants using data from the ClinSeq® project. We first used NGS data from 19 genes in 5 participants, comparing them to high-throughput Sanger sequencing results on the same samples, and found no discrepancies among 234 NGS variants. We then compared NGS variants in 5 genes from 684 participants against data from Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: Of over 5800 NGS-derived variants, 19 were not validated by Sanger data. Using newly designed sequencing primers, Sanger sequencing confirmed 17 of the NGS variants, and the remaining 2 variants had low quality scores from exome sequencing. Overall, we measured a validation rate of 99.965% for NGS variants using Sanger sequencing, which was higher than many existing medical tests that do not necessitate orthogonal validation. CONCLUSIONS: A single round of Sanger sequencing is more likely to incorrectly refute a true-positive variant from NGS than to correctly identify a false-positive variant from NGS. Validation of NGS-derived variants using Sanger sequencing has limited utility, and best practice standards should not include routine orthogonal Sanger validation of NGS variants.
Authors: W James Kent; Charles W Sugnet; Terrence S Furey; Krishna M Roskin; Tom H Pringle; Alan M Zahler; David Haussler Journal: Genome Res Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Jennifer J Johnston; Jamie K Teer; Praveen F Cherukuri; Nancy F Hansen; Stacie K Loftus; Karen Chong; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2010-05-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Jamie K Teer; Lori L Bonnycastle; Peter S Chines; Nancy F Hansen; Natsuyo Aoyama; Amy J Swift; Hatice Ozel Abaan; Thomas J Albert; Elliott H Margulies; Eric D Green; Francis S Collins; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Jennifer J Johnston; Katie L Lewis; David Ng; Larry N Singh; Jamila Wynter; Carmen Brewer; Brian P Brooks; Isaac Brownell; Fabio Candotti; Steven G Gonsalves; Suzanne P Hart; Heidi H Kong; Kristina I Rother; Robert Sokolic; Benjamin D Solomon; Wadih M Zein; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-06-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Leslie G Biesecker; James C Mullikin; Flavia M Facio; Clesson Turner; Praveen F Cherukuri; Robert W Blakesley; Gerard G Bouffard; Peter S Chines; Pedro Cruz; Nancy F Hansen; Jamie K Teer; Baishali Maskeri; Alice C Young; Teri A Manolio; Alexander F Wilson; Toren Finkel; Paul Hwang; Andrew Arai; Alan T Remaley; Vandana Sachdev; Robert Shamburek; Richard O Cannon; Eric D Green Journal: Genome Res Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Stephen G Gonsalves; David Ng; Jennifer J Johnston; Jamie K Teer; Peter D Stenson; David N Cooper; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Lennart F Johansson; Eddy N de Boer; Rowida Almomani; Ludolf G Boven; Maarten P van den Berg; Karin Y van Spaendonck-Zwarts; J Peter van Tintelen; Rolf H Sijmons; Jan D H Jongbloed; Richard J Sinke Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2013-04-29 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Hongjie Yuan; Kasper B Hansen; Jing Zhang; Tyler Mark Pierson; Thomas C Markello; Karin V Fuentes Fajardo; Conisha M Holloman; Gretchen Golas; David R Adams; Cornelius F Boerkoel; William A Gahl; Stephen F Traynelis Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Samuel P Strom; Hane Lee; Kingshuk Das; Eric Vilain; Stanley F Nelson; Wayne W Grody; Joshua L Deignan Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Laura J Rasmussen-Torvik; Berta Almoguera; Kimberly F Doheny; Robert R Freimuth; Adam S Gordon; Hakon Hakonarson; Jared B Hawkins; Ammar Husami; Lynn C Ivacic; Iftikhar J Kullo; Michael D Linderman; Teri A Manolio; Aniwaa Owusu Obeng; Renata Pellegrino; Cynthia A Prows; Marylyn D Ritchie; Maureen E Smith; Sarah C Stallings; Wendy A Wolf; Kejian Zhang; Stuart A Scott Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: P Cacheiro; A Ordóñez-Ugalde; B Quintáns; S Piñeiro-Hermida; J Amigo; M García-Murias; S I Pascual-Pascual; F Grandas; J Arpa; A Carracedo; M J Sobrido Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Ira M Lubin; Nazneen Aziz; Lawrence J Babb; Dennis Ballinger; Himani Bisht; Deanna M Church; Shaun Cordes; Karen Eilbeck; Fiona Hyland; Lisa Kalman; Melissa Landrum; Edward R Lockhart; Donna Maglott; Gabor Marth; John D Pfeifer; Heidi L Rehm; Somak Roy; Zivana Tezak; Rebecca Truty; Mollie Ullman-Cullere; Karl V Voelkerding; Elizabeth A Worthey; Alexander W Zaranek; Justin M Zook Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-03-18 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Mari Mori; Gloria Haskell; Zoheb Kazi; Xiaolin Zhu; Stephanie M DeArmey; Jennifer L Goldstein; Deeksha Bali; Catherine Rehder; Elizabeth T Cirulli; Priya S Kishnani Journal: Mol Genet Metab Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 4.797
Authors: James Rush Priest; Charles Gawad; Kristopher M Kahlig; Joseph K Yu; Thomas O'Hara; Patrick M Boyle; Sridharan Rajamani; Michael J Clark; Sarah T K Garcia; Scott Ceresnak; Jason Harris; Sean Boyle; Frederick E Dewey; Lindsey Malloy-Walton; Kyla Dunn; Megan Grove; Marco V Perez; Norma F Neff; Richard Chen; Katsuhide Maeda; Anne Dubin; Luiz Belardinelli; John West; Christian Antolik; Daniela Macaya; Thomas Quertermous; Natalia A Trayanova; Stephen R Quake; Euan A Ashley Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 11.205