Marija Debeljak1, Michael Noë1,2, Stacy L Riel1, Lisa M Haley1, Alexis L Norris1, Derek A Anderson1, Emily M Adams1, Masaya Suenaga1, Katie F Beierl1, Ming-Tseh Lin1, Michael G Goggins1,2,3,4, Christopher D Gocke1,2, James R Eshleman5,6,7. 1. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, CRB II, Room 344, 1550 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. jeshlem@jhmi.edu. 6. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA. jeshlem@jhmi.edu. 7. The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, CRB II, Room 344, 1550 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21231, USA. jeshlem@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasensitive detection of low-abundance DNA point mutations is a challenging molecular biology problem, because nearly identical mutant and wild-type molecules exhibit crosstalk. Reliable ultrasensitive point mutation detection will facilitate early detection of cancer and therapeutic monitoring of cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a method to correct errors in low-level cell line mixes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We tested sample mixes with digital-droplet PCR (ddPCR) and next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: We introduced two corrections: baseline variant allele frequency (VAF) in the parental cell line was used to correct for copy number variation; and haplotype counting was used to correct errors in cell counting and pipetting. We found ddPCR to have better correlation for detecting low-level mutations without applying any correction (R2 = 0.80) and be more linear after introducing both corrections (R2 = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The VAF correction was found to be more significant than haplotype correction. It is imperative that various technologies be evaluated against each other and laboratories be provided with defined quality control samples for proficiency testing.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasensitive detection of low-abundance DNA point mutations is a challenging molecular biology problem, because nearly identical mutant and wild-type molecules exhibit crosstalk. Reliable ultrasensitive point mutation detection will facilitate early detection of cancer and therapeutic monitoring of cancerpatients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a method to correct errors in low-level cell line mixes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We tested sample mixes with digital-droplet PCR (ddPCR) and next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: We introduced two corrections: baseline variant allele frequency (VAF) in the parental cell line was used to correct for copy number variation; and haplotype counting was used to correct errors in cell counting and pipetting. We found ddPCR to have better correlation for detecting low-level mutations without applying any correction (R2 = 0.80) and be more linear after introducing both corrections (R2 = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The VAF correction was found to be more significant than haplotype correction. It is imperative that various technologies be evaluated against each other and laboratories be provided with defined quality control samples for proficiency testing.
Authors: Cassandra B Jabara; Corbin D Jones; Jeffrey Roach; Jeffrey A Anderson; Ronald Swanstrom Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Isaac Garcia-Murillas; Gaia Schiavon; Britta Weigelt; Charlotte Ng; Sarah Hrebien; Rosalind J Cutts; Maggie Cheang; Peter Osin; Ashutosh Nerurkar; Iwanka Kozarewa; Javier Armisen Garrido; Mitch Dowsett; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ian E Smith; Nicholas C Turner Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Dianne I Lou; Jeffrey A Hussmann; Ross M McBee; Ashley Acevedo; Raul Andino; William H Press; Sara L Sawyer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Chetan Bettegowda; Mark Sausen; Rebecca J Leary; Isaac Kinde; Yuxuan Wang; Nishant Agrawal; Bjarne R Bartlett; Hao Wang; Brandon Luber; Rhoda M Alani; Emmanuel S Antonarakis; Nilofer S Azad; Alberto Bardelli; Henry Brem; John L Cameron; Clarence C Lee; Leslie A Fecher; Gary L Gallia; Peter Gibbs; Dung Le; Robert L Giuntoli; Michael Goggins; Michael D Hogarty; Matthias Holdhoff; Seung-Mo Hong; Yuchen Jiao; Hartmut H Juhl; Jenny J Kim; Giulia Siravegna; Daniel A Laheru; Calogero Lauricella; Michael Lim; Evan J Lipson; Suely Kazue Nagahashi Marie; George J Netto; Kelly S Oliner; Alessandro Olivi; Louise Olsson; Gregory J Riggins; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Kerstin Schmidt; le-Ming Shih; Sueli Mieko Oba-Shinjo; Salvatore Siena; Dan Theodorescu; Jeanne Tie; Timothy T Harkins; Silvio Veronese; Tian-Li Wang; Jon D Weingart; Christopher L Wolfgang; Laura D Wood; Dongmei Xing; Ralph H Hruban; Jian Wu; Peter J Allen; C Max Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Luis A Diaz Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Frank Diehl; Kerstin Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Katharine Romans; Steven Goodman; Meng Li; Katherine Thornton; Nishant Agrawal; Lori Sokoll; Steve A Szabo; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ming-Tseh Lin; Stacy L Mosier; Michele Thiess; Katie F Beierl; Marija Debeljak; Li-Hui Tseng; Guoli Chen; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Hao Ho; Leslie Cope; Sarah J Wheelan; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.493