David Wu1, Adam Waalkes1, Kelsi Penewit1, Stephen J Salipante2. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. stevesal@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic chimerism, the co-occurrence of cells from different genetic origins, provides important diagnostic information in diverse clinical contexts, including graft injury detection and longitudinal surveillance of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients, but existing assays are limiting. Here we applied single-molecule molecular inversion probes (smMIPs), a high-throughput sequencing technology combining multiplexed target capture with read quantification mediated by unique molecular identifiers, to detect chimerism based on the presence or absence of polymorphic genomic loci. METHODS: We designed a 159-smMIP panel targeting 40 autosomal regions of frequent homozygous deletion across human populations and 2 sex-linked loci. We developed methods for detecting and quantitating loci absent from 1 cell population but present in another, which could be used to sensitively identify chimeric cell populations. RESULTS: Unrelated individuals and first-degree relatives were highly polymorphic across the loci examined. Using synthetic DNA mixtures, limits of detection of at least 1 in 10000 chimeric cells were demonstrated without prior knowledge of genotypes, and mixtures of up to 4 separate donors could be deconvoluted. Quantitative linearity over 4 orders of magnitude and false-positive rates <1 in 85000 events were achieved. Eleven of 11 posttransplant clinical specimens from patients with hematological malignancies testing positive for residual cancer by conventional methods had detectable chimeric populations by smMIP, whereas 11 of 11 specimens testing negative by conventional methods were low-positive for chimerism by smMIP. CONCLUSIONS: smMIPs are scalable to high sensitivity and large numbers of informative markers, enabling ultrasensitive chimerism detection for many clinical purposes.
BACKGROUND: Genomic chimerism, the co-occurrence of cells from different genetic origins, provides important diagnostic information in diverse clinical contexts, including graft injury detection and longitudinal surveillance of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients, but existing assays are limiting. Here we applied single-molecule molecular inversion probes (smMIPs), a high-throughput sequencing technology combining multiplexed target capture with read quantification mediated by unique molecular identifiers, to detect chimerism based on the presence or absence of polymorphic genomic loci. METHODS: We designed a 159-smMIP panel targeting 40 autosomal regions of frequent homozygous deletion across human populations and 2 sex-linked loci. We developed methods for detecting and quantitating loci absent from 1 cell population but present in another, which could be used to sensitively identify chimeric cell populations. RESULTS: Unrelated individuals and first-degree relatives were highly polymorphic across the loci examined. Using synthetic DNA mixtures, limits of detection of at least 1 in 10000 chimeric cells were demonstrated without prior knowledge of genotypes, and mixtures of up to 4 separate donors could be deconvoluted. Quantitative linearity over 4 orders of magnitude and false-positive rates <1 in 85000 events were achieved. Eleven of 11 posttransplant clinical specimens from patients with hematological malignancies testing positive for residual cancer by conventional methods had detectable chimeric populations by smMIP, whereas 11 of 11 specimens testing negative by conventional methods were low-positive for chimerism by smMIP. CONCLUSIONS: smMIPs are scalable to high sensitivity and large numbers of informative markers, enabling ultrasensitive chimerism detection for many clinical purposes.
Authors: Vijayakrishna K Gadi; J Lee Nelson; Nicholas D Boespflug; Katherine A Guthrie; Christian S Kuhr Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Joseph B Hiatt; Colin C Pritchard; Stephen J Salipante; Brian J O'Roak; Jay Shendure Journal: Genome Res Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: W Zeijlemaker; A Kelder; Y J M Oussoren-Brockhoff; W J Scholten; A N Snel; D Veldhuizen; J Cloos; G J Ossenkoppele; G J Schuurhuis Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Damien L Bruno; Devika Ganesamoorthy; Natalie P Thorne; Ling Ling; Melanie Bahlo; Sue Forrest; Marieke Veenendaal; Marina Katerelos; Alison Skene; Frank L Ierino; David A Power; Howard R Slater Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2014-06-04 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: G L Uy; E J Duncavage; G S Chang; M A Jacoby; C A Miller; J Shao; S Heath; K Elliott; T Reineck; R S Fulton; C C Fronick; M O'Laughlin; L Ganel; C N Abboud; A F Cashen; J F DiPersio; R K Wilson; D C Link; J S Welch; T J Ley; T A Graubert; P Westervelt; M J Walter Journal: Leukemia Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: David Wu; Sami B Kanaan; Kelsi Penewit; Adam Waalkes; Francesca Urselli; J Lee Nelson; Jerald Radich; Stephen J Salipante Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 5.568