Sonja Lagström1,2, Sinan Uğur Umu2, Maija Lepistö3, Pekka Ellonen3, Roger Meisal1, Irene Kraus Christiansen1,4, Ole Herman Ambur5, Trine B Rounge6. 1. Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. 2. Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. 3. Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Clinical Molecular Biology (EpiGen), Medical Division, Akershus University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of, Oslo, Norway. 5. Faculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway. 6. Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway. trine.rounge@kreftregisteret.no.
Abstract
HPV genomic variability and chromosomal integration are important in the HPV-induced carcinogenic process. To uncover these genomic events in an HPV infection, we have developed an innovative and cost-effective sequencing approach named TaME-seq (tagmentation-assisted multiplex PCR enrichment sequencing). TaME-seq combines tagmentation and multiplex PCR enrichment for simultaneous analysis of HPV variation and chromosomal integration, and it can also be adapted to other viruses. For method validation, cell lines (n = 4), plasmids (n = 3), and HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 positive clinical samples (n = 21) were analysed. Our results showed deep HPV genome-wide sequencing coverage. Chromosomal integration breakpoints and large deletions were identified in HPV positive cell lines and in one clinical sample. HPV genomic variability was observed in all samples allowing identification of low frequency variants. In contrast to other approaches, TaME-seq proved to be highly efficient in HPV target enrichment, leading to reduced sequencing costs. Comprehensive studies on HPV intra-host variability generated during a persistent infection will improve our understanding of viral carcinogenesis. Efficient identification of both HPV variability and integration sites will be important for the study of HPV evolution and adaptability and may be an important tool for use in cervical cancer diagnostics.
HPV genomic variability and chromosomal integration are important in the HPV-induced carcinogenic process. To uncover these genomic events in an HPV infection, we have developed an innovative and cost-effective sequencing approach named TaME-seq (tagmentation-assisted multiplex PCR enrichment sequencing). TaME-seq combines tagmentation and multiplex PCR enrichment for simultaneous analysis of HPV variation and chromosomal integration, and it can also be adapted to other viruses. For method validation, cell lines (n = 4), plasmids (n = 3), and HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 positive clinical samples (n = 21) were analysed. Our results showed deep HPV genome-wide sequencing coverage. Chromosomal integration breakpoints and large deletions were identified in HPV positive cell lines and in one clinical sample. HPV genomic variability was observed in all samples allowing identification of low frequency variants. In contrast to other approaches, TaME-seq proved to be highly efficient in HPV target enrichment, leading to reduced sequencing costs. Comprehensive studies on HPV intra-host variability generated during a persistent infection will improve our understanding of viral carcinogenesis. Efficient identification of both HPV variability and integration sites will be important for the study of HPV evolution and adaptability and may be an important tool for use in cervical cancer diagnostics.
Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the main cause of cervical cancer[1], one of the most common cancers in women worldwide, causing more than 200,000 deaths each year[2,3]. A persistent infection with HPV high-risk genotypes is recognised as a necessary cause of cancer development[4]. Of the 13 carcinogenic high-risk types, HPV16 and 18 are associated with about 70% of all cervical cancers[5,6]. HPV infection is also associated with cancer in penis, vulva, vagina, anus, and head and neck[7]. However, only a small fraction of HPV infections at any site will progress to cancer[8]. This indicates that in addition to HPV infection, additional factors such as HPV genomic variability and integration, could contribute to the HPV-induced carcinogenic process. An appropriate sequencing approach is needed to uncover these genomic events during a persistent HPV infection.HPV contains an approximately 7.9 kb circular double-stranded DNA genome, consisting of early region (E1, E2, E4-7) genes, late region (L1, L2) genes and an upstream regulatory region (URR)[9]. To date, more than 200 HPV types have been identified[10]. Each individual HPV type shares at least 90% sequence identity in the conserved L1 open reading frame (ORF) nucleotide sequence. Isolates of the same HPV types that differ by 1–10% or 0.5–1% across the genome are referred to as variant lineages or sublineages, respectively[11,12].Despite phylogenetic relatedness, HPV variant lineages can differ in their carcinogenic potential[13-16]. Traditionally, studies have focused on cancer risk of main variants. However, recent studies have revealed variability below the level of variant lineages that may be evidence of intra-host viral evolution and adaptation[17-20]. In contrast to a limited number of studies on HPV variability, HPV integration into the host genome has been more widely studied and is regarded as a determining event in cervical carcinogenesis[21-23]. Upon integration, disruption or complete deletion of the E1 or E2 gene is often observed, resulting in constitutive expression of the E6 and E7 oncogenes[24-26], inactivation of cell cycle checkpoints and genetic instability[23]. Viral integration may also lead to modified expression of cellular genes nearby, disruption of genes, as well as genomic amplifications that may promote oncogenesis[23,27]. The finding of certain chromosomal clusters of integration in precancerous lesions and cancers[28] also suggests a selective advantage of specific HPV integrations. Still, several important questions remain for HPV integration and more comprehensive analyses of integration sites are needed in order to expand our understanding of HPV pathogenesis.The development of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has provided new tools for viral genomic research. During the recent years, a few studies have described different NGS based approaches to study HPV variability and integration in the human genome. The most common approaches used in HPV genomic analyses are based on target enrichment using highly multiplexed degenerate primers[29], enrichment by multiplex PCR using HPV16 forward primers[30], bead-based target capture[31-33], and rolling circle amplification[34] followed by NGS. These methods are however designed to detect either HPV integration or HPV variability. In addition, target capture methods poorly enrich HPV and remain expensive due to high probe cost and off-target sequencing.In order to contribute to the understanding of the role of intra-host HPV genomic variability and chromosomal integration in carcinogenesis, we have developed an innovative library preparation strategy followed by an in-house bioinformatics pipeline named TaME-seq (tagmentation-assisted multiplex PCR enrichment sequencing). TaME-seq combines tagmentation and multiplex PCR enrichment, allowing simultaneous HPV genomic variability and integration analysis (Fig. 1). TaME-seq, with highly efficient target enrichment and reduced sequencing cost, enables deep sequencing analysis in order to find low frequency variants and rare integration events. Here, we present the results of HPV integration and genomic variability analysis in HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 positive clinical samples and cell lines. The method described here provides an important tool for comprehensive studies of HPV genomic variability and chromosomal integration, and it can also be adapted to studies on other viruses such as retroviruses, adeno-associated viruses and integrating human herpesviruses.
Figure 1
Primer design, laboratory and bioinformatics workflows of the TaME-seq method.
Primer design, laboratory and bioinformatics workflows of the TaME-seq method.
Results
Read mapping analysis and genome coverage
Table 1 summarises liquid-based cytology (LBC) samples (n = 21), cell lines (n = 4) and plasmid samples (n = 3) included in the analysis. The samples generated 154.8 million raw reads of which 72.5 million reads (47%) mapped to the target HPV reference genomes. Only a small fraction (0.08%) of the reads mapped to other HPV types than those reported positive by HPV genotyping. The mean coverage ranged from 303 to 273898, while the fraction of the genome covered by minimum 10 × ranged from 0.35 to 1, and the fraction of the genome covered by minimum 100 × ranged from 0.33 to 1 (Table 1). HPV genome sequencing coverage aligned to the target HPV genomes with the location of HPV genomic regions and primers is visualised for CaSki, HeLa, LBC34, LBC11 and MS751 (Fig. 2). Overall, the samples showed varying HPV genome coverage profiles (Supplementary Figs S1–S5). Totally, 10 HPV positive samples were excluded from further analysis due to poor sequencing coverage (Supplementary Table S1). Sequencing of the HPV negative control samples resulted in no or negligible amount (<500) of reads mapped to target HPV genomes (Supplementary Table S2). The MS751 cell line was confirmed not to contain HPV18 sequences (Supplementary Table S1)[35].
Table 1
Read counts and sequencing coverage of HPV positive cell lines, plasmids and LBC samples.
Sample
Sample type
Raw reads
Trimmed reads
Reads mapped to target HPV
% Reads mapped to target HPV
Mean coverage
Fraction of genome covered by minimum
10×
100×
HPV16
CaSki
Cell line
16138790b
12944262
12634651
78%
184716
1.00
1.00
SiHa
Cell line
151168b
133360
67496
45%
1018
0.96
0.83
SiHa-1
Cell line
5948008c
3735936
1249594
21%
17561
0.93
0.90
SiHa-1
Cell line
844178b
532874
181199
21%
2554
0.92
0.78
SiHa-2
Cell line
1405886c
789664
420774
30%
5609
0.91
0.85
SiHa-2
Cell line
158672b
90150
48412
31%
646
0.84
0.52
WHO std HPV16
Plasmid
359638b
304002
278987
78%
4104
0.99
0.96
LBC1a
LBC
128008b
108756
75323
59%
1124
0.96
0.88
LBC7a
LBC
62246b
51590
25567
41%
384
0.94
0.66
HPV18
HeLa
Cell line
1433248b
1120824
394420
28%
5897
0.68
0.62
WHO std HPV18
Plasmid
2021206b
1358182
1098783
54%
15447
0.99
0.96
LBC103a
LBC
1477706b
1209564
74358
5%
1056
0.93
0.83
LBC105a
LBC
190664b
160450
32695
17%
484
0.51
0.34
LBC107
LBC
2180284b
1881868
978435
45%
14663
1.00
0.99
LBC108a
LBC
5407154b
3773986
3360463
62%
46691
1.00
0.98
LBC48a
LBC
641378b
433884
72589
11%
988
0.95
0.83
HPV31
LBC16
LBC
276994b
191290
74465
27%
1065
0.94
0.80
LBC24a
LBC
471666b
348416
24197
5%
355
0.96
0.69
LBC32
LBC
2446832b
1523572
1319939
54%
18983
0.99
0.98
LBC34
LBC
3285680b
1841812
1723631
52%
23790
0.99
0.96
HPV33
HPV33 plasmid
Plasmid
13824396b
5202718
5230090
38%
61527
1.00
1.00
LBC11
LBC
2852262b
1052512
986936
35%
12038
0.99
0.98
LBC30
LBC
77128b
51682
21431
28%
303
0.93
0.63
LBC31a
LBC
4276740c
2831408
44917
1.1%
544
0.76
0.60
LBC52
LBC
154936b
86990
34390
22%
439
0.95
0.62
LBC65a
LBC
368260b
248142
144022
39%
1993
1.00
0.91
HPV45
MS751
Cell line
1221694b
1047286
56291
5%
845
0.35
0.33
LBC13a
LBC
496370b
389306
58293
12%
849
0.96
0.78
LBC29
LBC
211052b
122502
45925
22%
614
0.91
0.69
LBC36a
LBC
2412532b
1822912
1579570
65%
22093
1.00
0.97
LBC54
LBC
50169422c
26385910
20570184
41%
256857
1.00
1.00
LBC64a
LBC
5121416c
3040714
307476
6%
3943
0.95
0.88
aSample has multiple HPV infections.
bSequenced on MiSeq sequencing platform.
cSequenced on HiSeq 2500 sequencing platform.
Figure 2
HPV genome sequencing coverage in HPV positive samples. The coverage plots of (a) CaSki, (b) HeLa, (c) LBC34, (d) LBC11, and (e) MS751 are aligned to the respective target HPV genomes. The location of early (E1, E2, E4-7), late (L1, L2) genes, URR, and forward (red arrows) and reverse (blue arrows) HPV primers is indicated below the genomic positions.
Read counts and sequencing coverage of HPV positive cell lines, plasmids and LBC samples.aSample has multiple HPV infections.bSequenced on MiSeq sequencing platform.cSequenced on HiSeq 2500 sequencing platform.HPV genome sequencing coverage in HPV positive samples. The coverage plots of (a) CaSki, (b) HeLa, (c) LBC34, (d) LBC11, and (e) MS751 are aligned to the respective target HPV genomes. The location of early (E1, E2, E4-7), late (L1, L2) genes, URR, and forward (red arrows) and reverse (blue arrows) HPV primers is indicated below the genomic positions.
Deletions in HPV genomes
The method enables identification of regions covered with very few or no sequencing reads, interpreted as large HPV genomic deletions. Cell lines HeLa and MS751 are known to contain partial HPV genomes due to deletions of 2.5 kb and 5 kb, respectively[35,36], which was confirmed by our method (Fig. 2). A large deletion of 4.8 kb was revealed in the clinical sample LBC105, indicating partial or complete deletion of HPV18 genes E1, E2, E4, E5, L1 and L2 (Supplementary Fig. S2).
HPV-human integration sites
A two-step strategy was applied to detect possible integration sites (Fig. 3). A total of 27 integration sites were detected in cell lines CaSki, SiHa, HeLa and MS571 (Table 2). For CaSki, 16 previously reported integration sites[30,32,37] were confirmed. In addition, three novel sites were identified. These mapped to HPV16 E6, E2 and L1 genes. One was located in an intronic region of the gene BRSK1; two were located more than 50 kb from annotated genes (Table 2). Three sites, including one previously reported site as a control[30,37], were subjected to Sanger sequencing to confirm the integration sites (Supplementary Table S3). Integration sites identified in SiHa, HeLa and MS751 were consistent with previous studies[31,35-39] and were not subjected to validation by Sanger sequencing. Additionally, two integration sites were detected in the clinical sample LBC105 (Table 2). The integration breakpoints were mapped to the HPV E1 and L1 genes flanking the deleted region (Supplementary Fig. S2) and they were located in intronic regions of the gene GTF2IRD1 (Table 2). Both integration sites were confirmed by Sanger sequencing (Supplementary Table S3).
Figure 3
An IGV visualisation of HISAT2 and LAST alignments to find HPV-human integration breakpoints. All the reads were first mapped with HISAT2 and then the unmapped reads were remapped with LAST. (a) SiHa reads mapping to chromosome 13 (GRCh38/hg38). Light blue HISAT2 reads have pairs mapping to HPV16 reference genome. Multi-coloured parts of the LAST reads are mismatched bases that map to HPV16 (not visualised). (b) SiHa reads mapping to HPV16 reference genome. Orange HISAT2 reads have pairs mapping to chromosome 13 (GRCh38/hg38). Multi-coloured parts of the LAST reads are mismatched bases that map to chromosome 13 (not visualised). Red arrows point to the exact breakpoint positions.
Table 2
Chromosomal integration sites detected by TaME-seq.
Sample
HPV
Human (GRCh38/hg38)
# Unique discordant read pairs
# Unique junction reads
Breakpoint
ORF
Chromosomal locus
Breakpoint
HPV16
CaSki
273
E6
20p11.1
chr20:26276796
19
0e
494a
E6
20p11.1
chr20:26341342b
7
0e
582
E7
19q13.42
chr19:55310208
0
15
975
E1
Xq27.3
chrX:145696778
0
7
1398
E1
2p23.3
chr2:27135968
6
0e
1793
E1
10p14
chr10:11700197
4
0e
2987
E2
Xq27.3
chrX:145708231
3
8
3239
E2
7p22.1
chr7:6925283
5
0e
3631a
E2
19q13.42
chr19:55310043c
3
0e
3729
E2
6p21.1
chr6:45691388
0
11
4654
L2
11p15.4
chr11:6741077
11
0e
5432
L2
11q22.1
chr11:100766632
2
0e
5698
L1
10p14
chr10:11700617
20
0e
5698
L1
5p11
chr5:46292081
2
0e
5762
L1
11q22.1
chr11:100771699
4
0e
6572
L1
19q13.42
chr19:55307445
3
0e
7123a
L1
20p11.1
chr20:26357640b
20
0e
7733
URR
11p15.4
chr11:6740842
2
0e
7733
URR
2p23.3
chr2:27137265
6
0e
SiHa
3133
E2
13q22.1
chr13:73513425
7
7
3385
E2/E4
13q22.1
chr13:73214729
3
0e
HPV18
HeLa
2066
E1
8q24.21
chr8:127229053
2
0e
2887
E2
8q24.21
chr8:127221122
13
0e
5730
L1
8q24.21
chr8:127218384
11
89
7655
URR
8q24.21
chr8:127221804
3
0e
LBC105
1561
E1
7q11.23
chr7:74525628d
0
10
LBC105
6528
L1
7q11.23
chr7:74515883d
2
0e
HPV45
MS751
1646
E1
18q11.2
chr18:23024744
10
0e
7120
L1
18q11.2
chr18:23021388
15
0e
aNovel breakpoint in CaSki cell line.
bNo annotated genes within 50 kb from the breakpoint.
cIntronic region in gene BRSK1.
dIntronic region in gene GTF2IRD1.
eWhen number of unique junction reads is 0, the breakpoint coordinates are not exact.
An IGV visualisation of HISAT2 and LAST alignments to find HPV-human integration breakpoints. All the reads were first mapped with HISAT2 and then the unmapped reads were remapped with LAST. (a) SiHa reads mapping to chromosome 13 (GRCh38/hg38). Light blue HISAT2 reads have pairs mapping to HPV16 reference genome. Multi-coloured parts of the LAST reads are mismatched bases that map to HPV16 (not visualised). (b) SiHa reads mapping to HPV16 reference genome. Orange HISAT2 reads have pairs mapping to chromosome 13 (GRCh38/hg38). Multi-coloured parts of the LAST reads are mismatched bases that map to chromosome 13 (not visualised). Red arrows point to the exact breakpoint positions.Chromosomal integration sites detected by TaME-seq.aNovel breakpoint in CaSki cell line.bNo annotated genes within 50 kb from the breakpoint.cIntronic region in gene BRSK1.dIntronic region in gene GTF2IRD1.eWhen number of unique junction reads is 0, the breakpoint coordinates are not exact.
Evaluation of variant calling using SiHa technical replicates
Sequencing libraries of the SiHa cell line served as technical replicates to assess the variant calling performance. In both SiHa-1 and SiHa-2, more variable sites were detected with higher mean coverage (Fig. 4). Number of variable sites in SiHa-1 ranged from 477 to 809 and mean coverage ranged from 2554 to 17561. Number of variable sites in SiHa-2 ranged from 257 to 522 and mean coverage ranged from 646 to 5609 (Fig. 4; Supplementary Table S4). First, reproducibility of variant calling was assessed within the same SiHa sequencing library. Concordance rate of variable sites was calculated using HiSeq 2500 result as the reference value. The concordance rates varied from 92% (HiSeq downsampled 90%) to 45% (MiSeq) in SiHa-1 and from 89% (HiSeq downsampled 90%) to 27% (MiSeq) in SiHa-2 (Supplementary Table S4). Concordance rates of variants, including low frequency variation, between replicates (different library, same sequencing platform) were calculated to evaluate the effect of library preparation steps on the number of variable sites found in each sample. Concordance rates were 21% and 19% in SiHa-1 and SiHa-2, respectively (Supplementary Table S5).
Figure 4
Number of variable sites in SiHa replicates. SiHa-1 (red dots) and SiHa-2 (blue dots) served as technical replicates to assess the variant calling performance. In SiHa libraries, sequenced on MiSeq and HiSeq 2500 platforms, increasing number of variable sites were detected with higher mean coverage.
Number of variable sites in SiHa replicates. SiHa-1 (red dots) and SiHa-2 (blue dots) served as technical replicates to assess the variant calling performance. In SiHa libraries, sequenced on MiSeq and HiSeq 2500 platforms, increasing number of variable sites were detected with higher mean coverage.
HPV genomic variability
Variability was analysed in cell lines and LBC samples. Samples had variable sites (variant allele frequency >0.2% and coverage ≥100×) in all genes with the exception of regions that were deleted or had low sequencing coverage. The number of variable sites was normalised by the length of each HPV genomic region. Genomic regions had varying percentages of variable sites (0–28%) in each of the samples. Overall, there were samples within each HPV type that had >15% variable sites in at least one HPV gene (Fig. 5). Principally, samples with higher mean coverage had more variable sites (Supplementary Table S6), which is in line with the results from the variant analysis done on SiHa replicates (Fig. 4). CaSki had most variable sites (1017) of the cell lines and LBC54 had most variable sites (1641) of the clinical samples (Supplementary Table S6). A variant profile with variable site positions and variant allele frequency (VAF) is shown for CaSki and LBC54 (Fig. 6). Overall, the results show considerable variability in the samples throughout the HPV genome (Fig. 5, Supplementary Figs S6–S10).
Figure 5
Proportion of variable sites in HPV genes in HPV positive samples. The number of variable sites was normalised by the length of each HPV gene. Gradient green (0% variable sites) to red (30% variable sites) color-coding of the results is shown to present the considerable variability in the samples throughout the HPV genome.
Figure 6
HPV nucleotide variation observed in two samples. The plots showing variable sites and variant allele frequency (%) in (a) CaSki, and (b) LBC54 are aligned to the respective target HPV genomes. The location of genes and URR is indicated below the genomic positions. The red line indicates the variant calling threshold value of 0.2%.
Proportion of variable sites in HPV genes in HPV positive samples. The number of variable sites was normalised by the length of each HPV gene. Gradient green (0% variable sites) to red (30% variable sites) color-coding of the results is shown to present the considerable variability in the samples throughout the HPV genome.HPV nucleotide variation observed in two samples. The plots showing variable sites and variant allele frequency (%) in (a) CaSki, and (b) LBC54 are aligned to the respective target HPV genomes. The location of genes and URR is indicated below the genomic positions. The red line indicates the variant calling threshold value of 0.2%.
Discussion
Here, we present a novel cost-efficient approach, TaME-seq, for the simultaneous analysis of HPV variation and chromosomal integration. Previous methods have been less effective and/or limited to either one of the two analyses[29-34]. To demonstrate the performance of TaME-seq, we employed HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 positive clinical samples, HPV positive cell lines and HPV plasmids. With 47% of the total of 154.8 million raw reads mapped on the target HPV reference genomes, TaME-seq proved to be highly efficient in HPV target enrichment. Other approaches for HPV target enrichment have reported much lower HPV mapping ratios[32,40], requiring more sequencing and therefore at a higher sequencing cost. TaME-seq currently covers HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45, being the most common HPV genotypes in cervical cancer[5]. TaME-seq can be extended to cover additional HPV types, as well as other viruses, by implementing new primers to the method.The ability of TaME-seq to detect chromosomal integration sites has been shown for the HPV positive cervical cancer cell lines CaSki, SiHa, HeLa and MS751. CaSki cells contain a high copy number (~600 copies/cell) of integrated full-length HPV16 arranged in concatemers[41,42]. SiHa (1–2 HPV16 copies/cell)[39,41] and HeLa (10–50 HPV18 copies/cell)[43] cells harbour integrated HPV genomes. MS751 cells contains integrated HPV45[35], but in contrast to the product specification sheet (ATCC, Manassas, VA) no HPV18, which was verified in our analyses. For CaSki, 16 previously reported integration sites[30,32,37] were detected by our method. In addition, three novel integration sites were identified. Known integration sites in SiHa[31,37,39], HeLa[31,36] and MS751[35], as well as large deletions demonstrated in HeLa[36] and MS751[35], were confirmed by the TaME-seq method. Of the 21 LBC samples, HPV integration sites could only be detected in one sample, being in line with previous studies reporting no or few HPV integration events in LSIL/ASC-US samples[44,45]. However, other studies report integration events also in LSIL samples[32,46]. The detection of integrated forms of the virus is also dependent on the amount of episomes in the sample; low copy integration sites may remain undetected against a high background of episomal HPV.The high sequencing coverage throughout the HPV genome enables detection of low frequency variants. Variant calling was evaluated using SiHa replicates to set the variant calling threshold. Previous studies have used variant calling thresholds of 0.5% or 1%[17,34]. With the high coverage provided by the TaME-seq method there is potential for detecting very low frequency variation. We have therefore analysed the variation using 0.2% as the variant calling threshold. Multiple and stringent filtering steps was included to filter out non-reliable variants, as we are approaching the inherent error rate profile of the PCR amplification and Illumina sequencing[47]. However, the threshold for variant calling is dependent on experimental and analytical basis and must be set according to the study aims.The results from the SiHa analysis indicate that calling ultra-low frequency variants is dependent on the sequencing coverage. Lower sequencing coverage results in the detection of fewer variants and less concordance between sample replicates. In order to find ultra-low frequency variants, high sequencing coverage is required. Figure 4 shows that at the mean coverage of 12000×, the number of variants in SiHa-1 is approaching saturation. This indicates that more variants are not likely to be found even with higher sequencing coverage. Finally, differences in sequencing coverage affect the number of variable sites found, but also experimental approaches due to stochastic sampling and variant calling can fail to reveal low frequency variants. Overall, our results uncover low frequency variants in the samples, potentially introduced by DNA repair mechanisms and APOBEC enzyme mediated DNA editing[48-50], although some bias may be introduced by PCR and sequencing. Variable sites are present in all genes of the studied HPV types. Traditionally, studies have focused on sequence variation on a viral sublineage level[13-16] or the high variability has been interpreted as HPV variant co-infections[29]. The development of NGS technologies has provided comprehensive tools for the study of HPV genomic variability. Recent studies have reported high HPV variability that may be evidence of intra-host viral evolution and adaptation generated during a chronic HPV infection[17-20].Our study has some limitations. Firstly, TaME-seq is not intended for determining HPV genotypes and we recommend it for analyses of HPV variability and integration events in samples with known HPV status. Secondly, due to variation in amplification efficacy, an uneven coverage is seen for different genomic regions. Sudden drops in the coverage, that are not genomic deletions, may be due to suboptimal primer performance or poor alignment against the reference genomes. This issue can be solved partly by designing new primers covering these regions and optimising the primer performance. Also, the read alignment step can be further optimised. Alternatively, alignment could be performed by de novo assembly to create consensus sequences for the alignment. Thirdly, enough viral DNA and good dsDNA quality are important for achieving consistent tagmentation results in the Nextera protocol[51]. Sample preparation of the excluded LBC samples failed likely due to very low viral load in the samples, which was not quantified separately.In summary, we have developed a NGS approach that allows the simultaneous study of HPV genomic variability and chromosomal integration. TaME-seq is applicable to large sample cohorts due to its highly efficient target enrichment, leading to less off-target sequences and therefore reduced sequencing cost. Comprehensive studies on HPV intra-host variability generated during a persistent infection will improve our understanding of viral carcinogenesis. Efficient identification of HPV genomic variability and integration sites will be important both for the study of HPV evolution, adaptability and may be a useful tool for cervical cancer diagnostics.
Methods
Samples
Anonymised LBC samples from routine cervical cancer screening were included in the study, comprising cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL). HPV positive samples with the cobas 4800 HPV test (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA) were extracted for DNA using the automated system NucliSENS easyMAG (BioMerieux Inc., France) with off-board lysis. The samples were HPV genotyped using the modified GP5+/6+ PCR protocol (MGP)[52], followed by HPV type-specific hybridisation using Luminex suspension array technology[53] or the Anyplex™ II HPV28 assay (Seegene, Inc., Seoul, Korea). LBC samples (n = 31) were positive for HPV16, 18, 31, 33 or 45 alone, or had multiple infections including at least one of the five types. DNA extracted from the HPV positive cervical carcinoma cell lines CaSki, SiHa, HeLa and MS751 (ATCC, Manassas, VA) served as positive controls. WHO international standards for HPV 16 (1st WHO International Standard for Human Papillomavirus Type 16 DNA, NIBSC code: 06/202) and 18 (1st WHO International Standard for Human Papillomavirus Type 18 DNA, NIBSC code: 06/206)(NIBSC, Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, UK) and a plasmid containing the strain HPV33[54] were used as additional positive controls. Laboratory-grade water and DNA from an HPV negative human sample were included as negative controls. DNA was quantified by the fluorescence-based Qubit dsDNA HS assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.,Waltham, MA, USA).
Primer design
HPV16, 18, 31, 33, and 45 whole genome reference and variant sequences were obtained from the PapillomaVirus Episteme (PaVE) database[55]. All the available reference and variant sequences within an HPV type were aligned using the multiple sequence alignment tool ClustalO[56]. The sequence alignment was converted to a consensus sequence for each HPV type in CLC Sequence viewer version 7.7.1 (QIAGEN Aarhus A/S). TaME-seq HPV primers were designed using Primer3[57] and HPV consensus sequences as the source sequence. Finally, primers were modified by adding an Illumina TruSeq-compatible adapter tail (5′-AGACGTGTGCTCTTCCGATCT-3′) to the 5′-end and then synthesised by Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. (Waltham, MA).
Library preparation and sequencing
Primer pools for each HPV type were prepared by combining primers separately in equal volumes. Samples were subjected to tagmentation using Nextera DNA library prep kit (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA). Tagmented DNA was purified using DNA Clean & Concentrator™-5 columns (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) according the manufacturer’s instructions or ZR-96 DNA Clean & Concentrator™-5 plates (Zymo Research, Irvine, CA) according to the Nextera® DNA Library Prep Reference Guide (15027987 v01) before PCR amplification for target enrichment. Amplification was performed using Qiagen Multiplex PCR Master mix (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For each sample, two PCR reactions were performed separately with 0.75 µM of HPV primer pools, 0.5 µM of i7 index primers (adapted from Kozich et al.[58]) and 1 µl of i5 index primers from the Nextera index kit (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA). The cycling conditions were as follows: initial denaturation and hot start at 95 °C for 5 minutes; 30 cycles at 95 °C for 30 seconds, at 58 °C for 90 seconds and at 72 °C for 20 seconds; final extension at 68 °C for 10 minutes. Following amplification, libraries were pooled in equal volumes and the final sample pool was purified with Agencourt® AMPure® XP beads (Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA). The quality and quantity of the pooled libraries were assessed on Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer using Agilent High Sensitivity DNA Kit (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA) and by qPCR using KAPA DNA library quantification kit (Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA). Sequencing was performed on the MiSeq platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA) or on the HiSeq 2500 platform (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA). Samples were sequenced as 151 bp paired-end reads and two 8 bp index reads.
Sequence alignment
Raw paired-end reads were trimmed for adapters, HPV primers, quality (-q 20) and finally for minimum length (-m 50) using cutadapt (v1.10)[59]. Trimmed reads were mapped to human (GRCh38/hg38) and HPV16, 18, 31, 33 and 45 reference genomes obtained from the PaVE database[55] using HISAT2 (v2.1.0)[60]. Mapping statistics and sequencing coverage were calculated using the Pysam package[61] with an in-house Python (v3.5.4) script. Downstream analysis was performed using an in-house R (v3.4.4) script. Results from both reactions of the same sample were combined and method performance was then evaluated based on the percentage of obtained reads mapped to the HPV reference genome, mean sequencing coverage and percentage of HPV reference genome coverage for each sample. Further analysis was performed when a sample had >20000 reads mapped to the target HPV reference genome. The target HPV genomes correspond to the HPV types for which the samples were reported positive by HPV genotyping.
Detecting HPV-human integration sites
The paired-end reads that mapped (HISAT2) with one end to a human chromosome and the other end to the target HPV reference genome were identified as discordant read pairs. If a specific position had ≥2 read pairs with unique start or end coordinates, it was considered as a potential integration site. To determine the exact position of HPV-human integration breakpoints, previously unmapped reads were remapped to human and HPV reference genomes (as above) using the LAST (v876) aligner (options -M -C2)[62]. Positions covered by ≥3 junction reads, with unique start or end coordinates, were considered as potential integration breakpoints. Integration site detection was not based on reads sharing the same start and end coordinates as these reads were considered as potential PCR duplicates. Selected HPV integration breakpoints were confirmed by PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing.
Sequence variation analysis
Mapped nucleotide counts over HPV reference genomes and average mapping quality values of each nucleotide were retrieved from BAM files and variant calling was performed using an in-house R script. To reduce the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artefacts in the variation analysis, filtering was applied before the variant calling. Nucleotides seen ≤2 times in each position and nucleotides with mean Phred quality score of <20 were filtered out. Nucleotide counts from both reactions of the same sample were combined and variant allele frequencies (VAF) of the three minor alleles in each position were calculated. If results from either of the reaction showed >5 times larger VAF with <20% of the total coverage, it was discarded from variant calling. Finally, variants were called if VAF was >0.2% and coverage was ≥100×.Two sequencing libraries of SiHa cell line served as technical replicates to assess the variant calling performance. The technical replicates were sequenced on the MiSeq platform or on the HiSeq 2500 platform. In addition, HiSeq raw sequencing data was downsampled randomly and defined portions (90%, 75%, 50% and 25%) of the original reads were further analysed. Reproducibility of calling variants in the replicates was assessed by calculating concordance rate. The concordance rate (Rc) between duplicates was defined as follows:where Nc was the number of concordant variants between a pair of replicate samples, and N1 and N2 were the total number of variants detected in each of the duplicated sample.
Ethical approval
This study was approved by the regional committee for medical and health research ethics, Oslo, Norway [2017/447] and we confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with the committee’s guidelines and regulations.Supplementary information
Authors: Markus Schmitt; I G Bravo; Peter J F Snijders; Lutz Gissmann; Michael Pawlita; Tim Waterboer Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: J M Walboomers; M V Jacobs; M M Manos; F X Bosch; J A Kummer; K V Shah; P J Snijders; J Peto; C J Meijer; N Muñoz Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Corina Ziegert; Nicolas Wentzensen; Svetlana Vinokurova; Fjodor Kisseljov; Jens Einenkel; Michael Hoeckel; Magnus von Knebel Doeberitz Journal: Oncogene Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Gernot Hudelist; Mahmood Manavi; Kerstin I D Pischinger; Thomas Watkins-Riedel; Christian F Singer; E Kubista; Klaus F Czerwenka Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.482