Literature DB >> 33707547

Sanger sequencing is no longer always necessary based on a single-center validation of 1109 NGS variants in 825 clinical exomes.

A Arteche-López1,2, A Ávila-Fernández1, R Romero1, R Riveiro-Álvarez1, M A López-Martínez1, A Giménez-Pardo1, C Vélez-Monsalve1, J Gallego-Merlo1, I García-Vara1, Berta Almoguera1, A Bustamante-Aragonés1, F Blanco-Kelly1, S Tahsin-Swafiri1, E Rodríguez-Pinilla1, P Minguez1, I Lorda1, M J Trujillo-Tiebas1, C Ayuso3.   

Abstract

Despite the improved accuracy of next-generation sequencing (NGS), it is widely accepted that variants need to be validated using Sanger sequencing before reporting. Validation of all NGS variants considerably increases the turnaround time and costs of clinical diagnosis. We comprehensively assessed this need in 1109 variants from 825 clinical exomes, the largest sample set to date assessed using Illumina chemistry reported. With a concordance of 100%, we conclude that Sanger sequencing can be very useful as an internal quality control, but not so much as a verification method for high-quality single-nucleotide and small insertion/deletions variants. Laboratories might validate and establish their own thresholds before discontinuing Sanger confirmation studies. We also expand and validate 23 copy number variations detected by exome sequencing in 20 samples, observing a concordance of 95.65% (22/23).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33707547      PMCID: PMC7952542          DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-85182-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  18 in total

1.  Confirming Variants in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel Testing by Sanger Sequencing.

Authors:  Linnea M Baudhuin; Susan A Lagerstedt; Eric W Klee; Numrah Fadra; Devin Oglesbee; Matthew J Ferber
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 5.568

2.  Clinical Validation of Copy Number Variant Detection from Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Panels.

Authors:  Jennifer Kerkhof; Laila C Schenkel; Jack Reilly; Sheri McRobbie; Erfan Aref-Eshghi; Alan Stuart; C Anthony Rupar; Paul Adams; Robert A Hegele; Hanxin Lin; David Rodenhiser; Joan Knoll; Peter J Ainsworth; Bekim Sadikovic
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 5.568

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

Authors:  Wenbo Mu; Hsiao-Mei Lu; Jefferey Chen; Shuwei Li; Aaron M Elliott
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 5.568

4.  Clinical exome sequencing for genetic identification of rare Mendelian disorders.

Authors:  Hane Lee; Joshua L Deignan; Naghmeh Dorrani; Samuel P Strom; Sibel Kantarci; Fabiola Quintero-Rivera; Kingshuk Das; Traci Toy; Bret Harry; Michael Yourshaw; Michelle Fox; Brent L Fogel; Julian A Martinez-Agosto; Derek A Wong; Vivian Y Chang; Perry B Shieh; Christina G S Palmer; Katrina M Dipple; Wayne W Grody; Eric Vilain; Stanley F Nelson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Clinical validation of targeted next-generation sequencing for inherited disorders.

Authors:  Sophia Yohe; Adam Hauge; Kari Bunjer; Teresa Kemmer; Matthew Bower; Matthew Schomaker; Getiria Onsongo; Jon Wilson; Jesse Erdmann; Yi Zhou; Archana Deshpande; Michael D Spears; Kenneth Beckman; Kevin A T Silverstein; Bharat Thyagarajan
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.534

6.  Targeted next-generation sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics.

Authors:  Birgit Sikkema-Raddatz; Lennart F Johansson; Eddy N de Boer; Rowida Almomani; Ludolf G Boven; Maarten P van den Berg; Karin Y van Spaendonck-Zwarts; J Peter van Tintelen; Rolf H Sijmons; Jan D H Jongbloed; Richard J Sinke
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 4.878

7.  Systematic Evaluation of Sanger Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing Variants.

Authors:  Tyler F Beck; James C Mullikin; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2016-02-04       Impact factor: 8.327

8.  Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology.

Authors:  Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  A comprehensive assessment of Next-Generation Sequencing variants validation using a secondary technology.

Authors:  Jianchao Zheng; Hongyun Zhang; Santasree Banerjee; Yun Li; Junyu Zhou; Qian Yang; Xuemei Tan; Peng Han; Qinmei Fu; Xiaoli Cui; Yuying Yuan; Meiyan Zhang; Ruiqin Shen; Haifeng Song; Xiuqing Zhang; Lijian Zhao; Zhiyu Peng; Wei Wang; Ye Yin
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.183

10.  Validation of next generation sequencing technologies in comparison to current diagnostic gold standards for BRAF, EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis.

Authors:  Clare M McCourt; Darragh G McArt; Ken Mills; Mark A Catherwood; Perry Maxwell; David J Waugh; Peter Hamilton; Joe M O'Sullivan; Manuel Salto-Tellez
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Intellectual disability genomics: current state, pitfalls and future challenges.

Authors:  Nuno Maia; Maria João Nabais Sá; Manuel Melo-Pires; Arjan P M de Brouwer; Paula Jorge
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 3.969

2.  Detection of genetic mutations in patients with breast cancer from Saudi Arabia using Ion AmpliSeq™ Cancer Hotspot Panel v.2.0.

Authors:  Safia A Messaoudi; Nourah A Al Sharhan; Bandar Alharthi; Saranya R Babu; Abrar B Alsaleh; Alanoud M Alasiri; Mourad Assidi; Abdelbaset Buhmeida; Wassim Y Almawi
Journal:  Biomed Rep       Date:  2022-02-14

3.  Genotyping of familial Mediterranean fever gene (MEFV)-Single nucleotide polymorphism-Comparison of Nanopore with conventional Sanger sequencing.

Authors:  Jonas Schmidt; Sandro Berghaus; Frithjof Blessing; Holger Herbeck; Josef Blessing; Peter Schierack; Stefan Rödiger; Dirk Roggenbuck; Folker Wenzel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Molecular Characterization by Multilocus Sequence Typing and Diversity Analysis of Rickettsia asembonensis in Peru.

Authors:  Steev Loyola; Armando Torre; Carmen Flores-Mendoza; Claudine Kocher; Gabriela Salmon-Mulanovich; Allen L Richards; Mariana Leguia
Journal:  Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 2.133

5.  A Pilot Study on Early-Onset Schizophrenia Reveals the Implication of Wnt, Cadherin and Cholecystokinin Receptor Signaling in Its Pathophysiology.

Authors:  Malgorzata Marta Drozd; Maria Capovilla; Carlo Previderé; Mauro Grossi; Florence Askenazy; Barbara Bardoni; Arnaud Fernandez
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  A Rare Phenotype of Uncommon Charcot-Marie-Tooth Genotypes Complicated With Inflammation Evaluated by Genetics and Magnetic Resonance Neurography.

Authors:  Xiaoyun Su; Xiangquan Kong; Zuneng Lu; Lixia Wang; Chuansheng Zheng
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Clustering of Genetic Anomalies of Cilia Outer Dynein Arm and Central Apparatus in Patients with Transposition of the Great Arteries.

Authors:  Marlon De Ita; Javier Gaytán-Cervantes; Bulmaro Cisneros; María Antonieta Araujo; Juan Carlos Huicochea-Montiel; Alan Cárdenas-Conejo; Charles César Lazo-Cárdenas; César Iván Ramírez-Portillo; Carina Feria-Kaiser; Leoncio Peregrino-Bejarano; Lucelli Yáñez-Gutiérrez; Carolina González-Torres; Haydeé Rosas-Vargas
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 4.141

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.