Literature DB >> 27720647

Sanger Confirmation Is Required to Achieve Optimal Sensitivity and Specificity in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing.

Wenbo Mu1, Hsiao-Mei Lu1, Jefferey Chen1, Shuwei Li1, Aaron M Elliott2.   

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has rapidly replaced Sanger sequencing as the method of choice for diagnostic gene-panel testing. For hereditary-cancer testing, the technical sensitivity and specificity of the assay are paramount as clinicians use results to make important clinical management and treatment decisions. There is significant debate within the diagnostics community regarding the necessity of confirming NGS variant calls by Sanger sequencing, considering that numerous laboratories report having 100% specificity from the NGS data alone. Here we report our results from 20,000 hereditary-cancer NGS panels spanning 47 genes, in which all 7845 nonpolymorphic variants were Sanger- sequenced. Of these, 98.7% were concordant between NGS and Sanger sequencing and 1.3% were identified as NGS false-positives, located mainly in complex genomic regions (A/T-rich regions, G/C-rich regions, homopolymer stretches, and pseudogene regions). Simulating a false-positive rate of zero by adjusting the variant-calling quality-score thresholds decreased the sensitivity of the assay from 100% to 97.8%, resulting in the missed detection of 176 Sanger-confirmed variants, the majority in complex genomic regions (n = 114) and mosaic mutations (n = 7). The data illustrate the importance of setting quality thresholds for panel testing only after thousands of samples have been processed and the necessity of Sanger confirmation of NGS variants to maintain the highest possible sensitivity.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27720647     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.006

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


  57 in total

1.  Determining Performance Metrics for Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Panels Using Reference Materials.

Authors:  Megan H Cleveland; Justin M Zook; Marc Salit; Peter M Vallone
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 5.568

Review 2.  Reference standards for next-generation sequencing.

Authors:  Simon A Hardwick; Ira W Deveson; Tim R Mercer
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Dealing with Pseudogenes in Molecular Diagnostics in the Next Generation Sequencing Era.

Authors:  Kathleen B M Claes; Toon Rosseel; Kim De Leeneer
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2021

4.  Association of Breast and Ovarian Cancers With Predisposition Genes Identified by Large-Scale Sequencing.

Authors:  Hsiao-Mei Lu; Shuwei Li; Mary Helen Black; Shela Lee; Robert Hoiness; Sitao Wu; Wenbo Mu; Robert Huether; Jefferey Chen; Srijani Sridhar; Yuan Tian; Rachel McFarland; Jill Dolinsky; Brigette Tippin Davis; Sharon Mexal; Charles Dunlop; Aaron Elliott
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 31.777

5.  Multi-gene testing in neurological disorders showed an improved diagnostic yield: data from over 1000 Indian patients.

Authors:  Aparna Ganapathy; Avshesh Mishra; Megha Rani Soni; Priyanka Kumar; Mukunth Sadagopan; Anil Vittal Kanthi; Irene Rosetta Pia Patric; Sobha George; Aparajit Sridharan; T C Thyagarajan; S L Aswathy; H K Vidya; Swathi M Chinnappa; Swetha Nayanala; Manasa B Prakash; Vijayashree G Raghavendrachar; Minothi Parulekar; Vykuntaraju K Gowda; Sheela Nampoothiri; Ramshekhar N Menon; Divya Pachat; Vrajesh Udani; Neeta Naik; Mahesh Kamate; A Radha Rama Devi; P A Mohammed Kunju; Mohandas Nair; Anaita Udwadia Hegde; M Pradeep Kumar; Soumya Sundaram; Preetha Tilak; Ratna D Puri; Krati Shah; Jayesh Sheth; Qurratulain Hasan; Frenny Sheth; Pooja Agrawal; Shanmukh Katragadda; Vamsi Veeramachaneni; Vijay Chandru; Ramesh Hariharan; Ashraf U Mannan
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 4.849

6.  Exome Sequencing of Fresh-frozen or Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded B6C3F1/N Mouse Hepatocellular Carcinomas Arising Either Spontaneously or due to Chronic Chemical Exposure.

Authors:  Scott S Auerbach; Miaofei Xu; B Alex Merrick; Mark J Hoenerhoff; Dhiral Phadke; Debra J Taxman; Ruchir Shah; Hue-Hua L Hong; Thai-Vu Ton; Ramesh C Kovi; Robert C Sills; Arun R Pandiri
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  2018-07-25       Impact factor: 1.902

Review 7.  Pediatric pharmacogenomics: challenges and opportunities: on behalf of the Sanford Children's Genomic Medicine Consortium.

Authors:  David Gregornik; Daria Salyakina; Marilyn Brown; Samuel Roiko; Kenneth Ramos
Journal:  Pharmacogenomics J       Date:  2020-08-26       Impact factor: 3.550

Review 8.  Next-generation sequencing in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease: opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Menelaos Pipis; Alexander M Rossor; Matilde Laura; Mary M Reilly
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 42.937

9.  "Squirrel" Primer-Based PCR Assay for Direct and Targeted Sanger Sequencing of Short Genomic Segments.

Authors:  Henry O Ebili; James C Hassall; Wakkas Fadhil; Hersh Ham-Karim; Abutaleb Asiri; Teresa P Raposo; Ayodeji Johnson Agboola; Mohammad Ilyas
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2017-06-06

10.  Rare BRIP1 Missense Alleles Confer Risk for Ovarian and Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Cassandra L Moyer; Jennifer Ivanovich; Jessica L Gillespie; Rachel Doberstein; Marc R Radke; Marcy E Richardson; Scott H Kaufmann; Elizabeth M Swisher; Paul J Goodfellow
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 12.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.