Richard Ofner1, Cathrin Ritter1,2, Selma Ugurel3, Lorenzo Cerroni1, Mathias Stiller2, Thomas Bogenrieder4, Flavio Solca4, David Schrama5, Jürgen C Becker6,7,8. 1. Department of General Dermatology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. 2. Translational Skin Cancer Research-TSCR, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen/Düsseldorf, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany. 4. Boehringer Ingelheim RCV, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. 6. Department of General Dermatology, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. j.becker@dkfz.de. 7. Translational Skin Cancer Research-TSCR, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site Essen/Düsseldorf, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. j.becker@dkfz.de. 8. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of Essen, Essen, Germany. j.becker@dkfz.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in sequencing technologies supported the development of molecularly targeted therapy in cancer patients. Thus, genomic analyses are becoming a routine part in clinical practice and accurate detection of actionable mutations is essential to assist diagnosis and therapy choice. However, this is often challenging due to major problems associated with DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue which is usually the primary source for genetic testing. OBJECTIVES: Here we want to share our experience regarding major problems associated with FFPE DNA used for PCR-based sequencing as illustrated by the mutational analysis of ERBB4 in melanoma. We want to focus on two major problems including extensive DNA fragmentation and hydrolytic deamination as source of non-reproducible sequence artifacts. Further, we provide potential explanations and possible strategies to minimize these difficulties and improve the detection of targetable mutations. METHODS: Genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples was isolated followed by PCR amplification, Sanger sequencing and statistical analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of Sanger sequencing data revealed a total of 46 ERBB4 mutations in 27 of 96 samples including the identification of 11 mutations at three previously unknown mutational hotspots. Unfortunately, we were not able to confirm any assumed hotspot mutation within repeated sequencing of relevant amplicons suggesting the detection of sequence artifacts most likely caused by DNA lesions associated with FFPE tissues. CONCLUSION: Since DNA from FFPE tissue is usually the primary source for mutational analyses, appropriate measures must be implemented in the workflow to assess DNA damage in formalin-fixed tissue to ensure accurate detection of actionable mutations and minimize the occurrence of sequence artifacts.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in sequencing technologies supported the development of molecularly targeted therapy in cancerpatients. Thus, genomic analyses are becoming a routine part in clinical practice and accurate detection of actionable mutations is essential to assist diagnosis and therapy choice. However, this is often challenging due to major problems associated with DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue which is usually the primary source for genetic testing. OBJECTIVES: Here we want to share our experience regarding major problems associated with FFPE DNA used for PCR-based sequencing as illustrated by the mutational analysis of ERBB4 in melanoma. We want to focus on two major problems including extensive DNA fragmentation and hydrolytic deamination as source of non-reproducible sequence artifacts. Further, we provide potential explanations and possible strategies to minimize these difficulties and improve the detection of targetable mutations. METHODS: Genomic DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples was isolated followed by PCR amplification, Sanger sequencing and statistical analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of Sanger sequencing data revealed a total of 46 ERBB4 mutations in 27 of 96 samples including the identification of 11 mutations at three previously unknown mutational hotspots. Unfortunately, we were not able to confirm any assumed hotspot mutation within repeated sequencing of relevant amplicons suggesting the detection of sequence artifacts most likely caused by DNA lesions associated with FFPE tissues. CONCLUSION: Since DNA from FFPE tissue is usually the primary source for mutational analyses, appropriate measures must be implemented in the workflow to assess DNA damage in formalin-fixed tissue to ensure accurate detection of actionable mutations and minimize the occurrence of sequence artifacts.
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
Authors: Erin D Pleasance; R Keira Cheetham; Philip J Stephens; David J McBride; Sean J Humphray; Chris D Greenman; Ignacio Varela; Meng-Lay Lin; Gonzalo R Ordóñez; Graham R Bignell; Kai Ye; Julie Alipaz; Markus J Bauer; David Beare; Adam Butler; Richard J Carter; Lina Chen; Anthony J Cox; Sarah Edkins; Paula I Kokko-Gonzales; Niall A Gormley; Russell J Grocock; Christian D Haudenschild; Matthew M Hims; Terena James; Mingming Jia; Zoya Kingsbury; Catherine Leroy; John Marshall; Andrew Menzies; Laura J Mudie; Zemin Ning; Tom Royce; Ole B Schulz-Trieglaff; Anastassia Spiridou; Lucy A Stebbings; Lukasz Szajkowski; Jon Teague; David Williamson; Lynda Chin; Mark T Ross; Peter J Campbell; David R Bentley; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton Journal: Nature Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Martin Kerick; Melanie Isau; Bernd Timmermann; Holger Sültmann; Ralf Herwig; Sylvia Krobitsch; Georg Schaefer; Irmgard Verdorfer; Georg Bartsch; Helmut Klocker; Hans Lehrach; Michal R Schweiger Journal: BMC Med Genomics Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.063
Authors: Sachin Sah; Liangjing Chen; Jeffrey Houghton; Jon Kemppainen; Adam C Marko; Robert Zeigler; Gary J Latham Journal: Genome Med Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Simon A Forbes; David Beare; Prasad Gunasekaran; Kenric Leung; Nidhi Bindal; Harry Boutselakis; Minjie Ding; Sally Bamford; Charlotte Cole; Sari Ward; Chai Yin Kok; Mingming Jia; Tisham De; Jon W Teague; Michael R Stratton; Ultan McDermott; Peter J Campbell Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Mark Southwood; Tomasz Krenz; Natasha Cant; Manisha Maurya; Jana Gazdova; Perry Maxwell; Claire McGready; Ellen Moseley; Susan Hughes; Peter Stewart; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Daniel Groelz; Doris Rassl Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2019-11-11