Introduction A robust genetic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is necessary for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We evaluated a commercial amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing (MPS) assay, BRCA MASTR Plus on the MiSeq platform, for germline BRCA genetic testing. Methods This study was performed on 31 DNA from cell lines and proficiency testing samples to establish the accuracy of the assay. A reference cell line DNA, NA12878 was used to determine the reproducibility of the assay. Discordant MPS result was resolved orthogonally by the current gold-standard Sanger sequencing method. Results The analytical accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for variant detection were 93.55, 92.86, and 100.00%, respectively. Both sequencing depth and variant allele frequencies were highly reproducible by comparing the NA12878 DNA tested in three separate runs. The single discordant result, later confirmed by Sanger sequencing was due to the inability of the MASTR Reporter software to identify a 40-bp deletion in BRCA1 . Conclusion The BRCA MASTR Plus assay on the MiSeq platform is accurate and reproducible for germline BRCA genetic testing, making it suitable for use in a clinical diagnostic laboratory. However, Sanger sequencing may still serve as a confirmatory method to improve diagnostic capability of the MPS assay. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
Introduction A robust genetic test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is necessary for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of patients with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. We evaluated a commercial amplicon-based massively parallel sequencing (MPS) assay, BRCAMASTR Plus on the MiSeq platform, for germline BRCA genetic testing. Methods This study was performed on 31 DNA from cell lines and proficiency testing samples to establish the accuracy of the assay. A reference cell line DNA, NA12878 was used to determine the reproducibility of the assay. Discordant MPS result was resolved orthogonally by the current gold-standard Sanger sequencing method. Results The analytical accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for variant detection were 93.55, 92.86, and 100.00%, respectively. Both sequencing depth and variant allele frequencies were highly reproducible by comparing the NA12878 DNA tested in three separate runs. The single discordant result, later confirmed by Sanger sequencing was due to the inability of the MASTR Reporter software to identify a 40-bp deletion in BRCA1 . Conclusion The BRCAMASTR Plus assay on the MiSeq platform is accurate and reproducible for germline BRCA genetic testing, making it suitable for use in a clinical diagnostic laboratory. However, Sanger sequencing may still serve as a confirmatory method to improve diagnostic capability of the MPS assay. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is an autosomal dominant cancer syndrome frequently caused by germline pathogenic variants in the two DNA repair genes,
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
. Due to high penetrance, approximately 50% of women with
BRCA
pathogenic variants will be diagnosed with breast cancer by age of 70 years.
1
For ovarian cancer, these estimates were 40 and 18% of women with mutant
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genes, respectively.
1
Several poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP) inhibitors have been approved for therapy in patients with HBOC syndrome with germline
BRCA
pathogenic variants.
2
In patients with >30% variant allele frequency (VAF) of pathogenic
BRCA
variants from tumor profiling, genetic testing of germline variant is recommended.
3
Genetic testing of the
BRCA
genes plays a vital role to allow identification of carriers of pathogenic variants and increased screening for early detection of breast and ovarian cancers in these individuals. A robust laboratory assay is crucial to enable genetic testing of
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genes on which risk assessment, patient management, and therapeutic assignment in HBOC patients rely.The
BRCA1
(OMIM: 113705) and
BRCA2
(OMIM: 600185) genes, located at 17q21.31 and 13q13.1, are large genes with 24 and 27 exons encoding 1,863 and 3,418 amino acids, respectively. They are tumor-suppressor genes in which loss-of-function variants are associated with increased risk of HBOC syndrome. A wide spectrum of pathogenic variants is detectable throughout the coding and splice site regions of the
BRCA
genes. These genetic alterations are heterogeneous, including single nucleotide variants (SNVs), small insertions and deletions (indels) affecting a short stretch of nucleotides, large indels at exonic level and copy number variants (CNV). With the advent of massively parallel sequencing (MPS), the laboratory accessibility to sequencing the two large
BRCA
genes is improved. A recent international survey
4
revealed that 93% of the laboratories utilize MPS platforms for sequencing the
BRCA
genes. In this study, we evaluated a commercial amplicon-based MPS assay, BRCAMASTR Plus (Multiplicom, Niel, Belgium) on the MiSeq platform (Illumina; San Diego, California, United States), for germline
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genetic testing.
Methods
DNA Samples
Samples tested in this study were cell line DNA from Coriell Institute for Medical Research (
n
= 10), namely, NA13714, NA14091, NA14624, NA14639, NA14788, NA14805, NA14623, NA14622, NA14170, and NA12878. Notably, NA12878 is a reference cell line characterized by the Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) Consortium hosted by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
5
Twenty-one DNA samples accrued from College of American Pathologists/American College of Medical Genetics (CAP/ACMG)
BRCA
1/2 Sequencing External Quality Assurance (EQA) Program were also tested in this study.
BRCA MASTR Plus Assay Library Preparation and Sequencing
Concentrations of DNA samples were measured using NanoDrop 2000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, United States). Working DNA samples were diluted with nuclease-free water (Invitrogen, Waltham, Massachusetts, United States) to a concentration of 10 ng/µL. Five µL of diluted DNA was subject to four multiplex polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) with reagents supplied in BRCAMASTR Plus kit (Multiplicom) according to manufacturer's instructions. Five µL of PCR products from the multiplex PCR reactions were subject to electrophoresis using 2% (w/v) agarose gel in Tris-Borate-EDTA (TBE) buffer at 100 V for 30 minutes to verify the presence of PCR products with sizes exceeding 150 base pairs. Equal volumes of multiplex PCR products were pooled and purified with AMPure XP beads (Agencourt; Beverly, Massachusetts, United States). Universal PCR was performed on purified pooled PCR products with MID p7 and p5 adaptor and primer mixes supplied in drMID for Illumina NGS systemskit (Multiplicom). Five µL of the universal PCR products were subject to electrophoresis using 2% (w/v) agarose gel in TBE buffer at 100 V for 30 minutes to verify the presence of PCR products with sizes exceeding 200 base pairs. The universal PCR products purified with AMPure XP beads were diluted to 4 nM in TE buffer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and pooled into a single library. The library was diluted to 12pM and denatured using 0.2 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH). MPS was performed on the MiSeq system (Illumina) using MiSeq Reagent Micro Kit v2 (300 cycles).
Bioinformatics
The demultiplexed FASTQ sequence files were uploaded to MASTR Reporter v1.2.1, proprietary web-based software by Multiplicom. The application of BRCAMASTR Plus Dx Germline was selected to analyze the sequencing data in this study. For variant analysis, the minimum coverage depth and allele frequency were specified at 40× and 20%, respectively. Variants were classified according to the 2015 ACMG/AMP guidelines.
6
Sanger Confirmation
A set of primers was designed using Primer3 software to amplify exon 11 of the
BRCA1
gene with expected PCR product size of 430 base pairs (bp). The forward and reverse primers were 5′cagaaactgccatgctcaga3′ and 5′tgaggggacgctcttgtatt3′, respectively. PCR was performed using HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix Kit (QIAGEN; Hilden, Germany) on 50 ng of DNA input. PCR products were purified with GeneAll Expin Kit (GeneAll Biotechnology, Seoul, Korea) and subject to cycle sequencing reaction using the same forward and reverse PCR primers with BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Sanger sequencing was performed on cycle sequencing products purified with DyeEx 2.0 Spinkit (QIAGEN) on ABI 3130 Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Sequence analysis was performed using ATF software (Conexio Genomics, Fremantle, Australia).
Statistical Analysis
Accuracy was calculated as the number of true positives and true negatives divided by the sum of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives using an online statistical software, MEDCALC.
Results
Sequencing Depth and Reproducibility of the Assay
With a pooling strategy with 10 samples per library, the minimum sequencing depth was above 400× and 350× for
BRCA1
(69 amplicons) and
BRCA2
(112 amplicons), respectively (
Figs. 1
and
2
). Comparing three batches of sequencing runs, the average sequencing depths per sample were 957× (66; mean [standard deviation (SD)]) and 873× (63) for the
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
, genes respectively. DNA from NA12878 was tested in a pooled library in three separate runs. Nine heterozygous
BRCA1
variants and three heterozygous and four homozygous
BRCA2
variants were consistently identified with highly reproducible VAF (
Figs. 3
and
4
). All
BRCA
variants identified by the current assay were in concordance with the variant datasets available from the Genetic Testing Reference Material (GeT-RM) browser at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI).
Fig. 1
Sequencing depth of
BRCA1
amplicons. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.
Fig. 2
Sequencing depth of
BRCA2
amplicons. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.
Fig. 3
Interrun reproducibility of variant allele frequency for
BRCA1
variants. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.
Fig. 4
Interrun reproducibility of variant allele frequency for
BRCA2
variants. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.
Sequencing depth of
BRCA1
amplicons. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.Sequencing depth of
BRCA2
amplicons. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.Interrun reproducibility of variant allele frequency for
BRCA1
variants. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.Interrun reproducibility of variant allele frequency for
BRCA2
variants. Bars represent mean and error bars represent standard deviation of three separate runs.
Analytical Validity of the Assay
In addition to NA12878, DNA samples from nine cell lines with known
BRCA
variants were evaluated (
Table 1
). All results were concordant with the data on these cell lines available from the Coriell Institute for Medical Research. Twenty-one blinded DNA samples, accrued from the CAP/ACMG BRCA1/2 sequencing program, were tested (
Table 1
). From these samples, eight heterozygous frameshift variants, three heterozygous stop-gain variants, and three heterozygous SNVs were correctly identified in the
BRCA
genes. Notably, a 40-bp deletion variant in the
BRCA1
gene was not conclusively reported by the MASTR Reporter; however, it was flagged as a long event (
Fig. 5
). Sanger sequencing further confirmed the long event as c.1175_1214del40 which was the expected variant according to CAP (
Fig. 6
). One EQA DNA sample which did not have any variants was correctly identified as being negative for
BRCA
variants. Altogether, for a total of 31 DNA samples, covering a range of different variants including SNVs, deletions, and duplications in the
BRCA
genes, the analytical accuracy for variant detection was 93.55% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.58–99.21%). The analytical sensitivity and specificity were 92.86% (95% CI: 76.50–99.12%) and 100.00% (95% CI: 29.24–100.00%), respectively.
Table 1
Summary of variant detection by MASTR Reporter software for BRCA MASTR Plus assay (Multiplicom) on 10 cell line DNA from Coriell Institute and 21 DNA samples accrued from external quality assurance program
No.
DNA sample ID
Gene
Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) nomenclature
MASTR Reporter
Zygosity
Concordance
Variant classification
Coding DNA level
Protein level
Variant frequency (%)
VEP variant consequence/impact
1
NA13714
BRCA1
c.5319dupC
p.Asn1774Glnfs*56
48.84
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
2
NA14091
BRCA1
c.5266dupC
p.Gln1756Profs*74
49.17
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
3
NA14624
BRCA2
c.5722_5723delCT
p.Leu1908Argfs*2
47.81
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
4
NA14639
BRCA2
c.6198_6199delTT
p.Ser2067Hisfs*10
53.73
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
5
NA14788
BRCA2
c.755_758delACAG
p.Asp252Valfs*24
50.00
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
6
NA14805
BRCA2
c.581G > A
p.Trp194*
49.30
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
7
NA14623
BRCA2
c.125A > G
p.Tyr42Cys
51.01
Missense/moderate
Heterozygous
Yes
Benign
8
NA14622
BRCA2
c.6275_6276delTT
p.Leu2092Profs*7
48.92
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
9
NA14170
BRCA2
c.5946delT
p.Ser1982Argfs*22
50.30
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
10
NA12878
BRCA1 and BRCA2
–
–
Refer to
Fig. 3
and
Fig. 4
for summaries
–
–
–
–
11
2016A01
BRCA1
c.5266dupC
p.Gln1756Profs*74
51.57
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
12
2016A02
BRCA1
c.4689C > G
p.Tyr1563*
49.53
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
13
2016A03
BRCA2
c.5946delT
p.Ser1982Argfs*22
50.22
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
14
2016B04
BRCA1
c.4327C > T
p.Arg1443*
51.01
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
15
2016B05
BRCA1
c.181T > G
p.Cys61Gly
52.79
Missense/moderate
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
16
2016B06
BRCA1
c.68_69delAG
p.Glu23Valfs*17
51.62
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
17
2017A01
BRCA1
c.1175_1214del40
p.Leu392Glnfs*5
>20
Identified as a long event ≥ 30nt
Heterozygous
No
Pathogenic
18
2017A02
BRCA1
c.2071delA
p.Arg691Aspfs*10
49.79
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
19
2017A03
BRCA1 and BRCA2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
20
2017B04
BRCA2
c.581G > A
p.Trp194*
50.74
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
21
2017B05
BRCA1
c.3481_3491delGAAGATACTAG
p.Glu1161Phefs*3
53.20
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
BRCA2
c.7630G > A
p.Gly2544Ser
50.54
Missense/moderate
Heterozygous
Yes
Uncertain significance
22
2017B06
BRCA1
c.1204delG
p.Glu402Serfs*8
51.62
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
23
2018A01
BRCA1
c.5138T > C
p.Val1713Ala
50.38
Missense/moderate
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
24
2018A02
BRCA2
c.6275_6276delTT
p.Leu2092Profs*7
51.90
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
25
2018A03
BRCA1
c.4327C > T
p.Arg1443*
48.76
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
26
2018B04
BRCA1
c.1175_1214del40
p.Leu392Glnfs*5
>20
Identified as a long event ≥ 30 nt
Heterozygous
No
Pathogenic
27
2018B05
BRCA1
c.181T > G
p.Cys61Gly
47.8
Missense/moderate
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
28
2018B06
BRCA2
c.581G > A
p.Trp194*
49.3
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
29
2019A01
BRCA1
c.4689C > G
p.Tyr1563*
51.6
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
30
2019A02
BRCA2
c.6275_6276delTT
p.Leu2092Profs*7
50.6
Frameshift/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
31
2019A03
BRCA1
c.4689C > G
p.Tyr1563*
48.9
Stop gained/high
Heterozygous
Yes
Pathogenic
Fig. 5
A long event with 40-bp deletion was equivocally detected on one of the
BRCA1
exon 11 amplicons of the BRCA MASTR Plus MPS assay. Mapping of reads to the
BRCA1
genomic region was visualized by read pileup in MASTR Reporter. The read with deleted region was abbreviated in blue color. The details including read ID, read name, mapping quality, reference position and nucleotide sequences were shown in the browser. The deletion was later confirmed by PCR and Sanger sequencing (illustrated in
Fig. 6
) to be c.1175_1214del40, which was the expected variant according to CAP. CAP, College of American Pathologists; MPS, massively parallel sequencing; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Fig. 6
Confirmation of an equivocal long event detected by MASTR Reporter software using PCR–Sanger sequencing. The
BRCA1
genomic region of interest was PCR amplified (left) and followed by Sanger sequencing of the PCR products. The deletion event, c.1175_1214del40 was verified by alignment to the
BRCA1
genomic RefSeq NG_005905.2 (right). PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
A long event with 40-bp deletion was equivocally detected on one of the
BRCA1
exon 11 amplicons of the BRCAMASTR Plus MPS assay. Mapping of reads to the
BRCA1
genomic region was visualized by read pileup in MASTR Reporter. The read with deleted region was abbreviated in blue color. The details including read ID, read name, mapping quality, reference position and nucleotide sequences were shown in the browser. The deletion was later confirmed by PCR and Sanger sequencing (illustrated in
Fig. 6
) to be c.1175_1214del40, which was the expected variant according to CAP. CAP, College of American Pathologists; MPS, massively parallel sequencing; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.Confirmation of an equivocal long event detected by MASTR Reporter software using PCR–Sanger sequencing. The
BRCA1
genomic region of interest was PCR amplified (left) and followed by Sanger sequencing of the PCR products. The deletion event, c.1175_1214del40 was verified by alignment to the
BRCA1
genomic RefSeq NG_005905.2 (right). PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Discussion
Here we demonstrate the use of well-characterized cell line DNA and blinded proficiency testing samples for evaluation of a commercial MPS assay for the entire coding regions of the
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genes in germline samples. In the absence of clinical samples, for a clinical laboratory starting a new assay, EQA samples and cell line samples are good resources for evaluating analytical accuracy and precision. Using these samples, we demonstrated the accurate identification of 10 different frameshift variants, 3 different stop gain variants, and 3 different SNVs in the
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genes.All samples showed concordance with the expected variants except for two EQA samples which harbor the same 40-bp deletion, c.1175_1214del40, in the
BRCA1
gene. First reported in 1994,
7
8
this deletion is not an uncommon pathogenic variant in HBOC patients (ClinVar, accessed on January 10, 2021). The inability to determine insertions and deletions spanning more than 30-bp is a declared limitation of the assay. Hence the laboratory may need to supplement the MPS assay with Sanger sequencing or use an alternative bioinformatics pipeline to analyze the sequencing data to confirm the exact deletion or insertion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have shown high reproducibility and accuracy of the BRCAMASTR Plus assay on the MiSeq platform. The simple bench workflow in combination with rapid automated data analysis by the MASTR Reporter software make it suitable for use for germline
BRCA1
and
BRCA2
genetic testing in a clinical diagnostic laboratory. However, Sanger sequencing may still serve as a confirmatory method to improve diagnostic capability of the MPS assay.
Authors: Justin M Zook; David Catoe; Jennifer McDaniel; Lindsay Vang; Noah Spies; Arend Sidow; Ziming Weng; Yuling Liu; Christopher E Mason; Noah Alexander; Elizabeth Henaff; Alexa B R McIntyre; Dhruva Chandramohan; Feng Chen; Erich Jaeger; Ali Moshrefi; Khoa Pham; William Stedman; Tiffany Liang; Michael Saghbini; Zeljko Dzakula; Alex Hastie; Han Cao; Gintaras Deikus; Eric Schadt; Robert Sebra; Ali Bashir; Rebecca M Truty; Christopher C Chang; Natali Gulbahce; Keyan Zhao; Srinka Ghosh; Fiona Hyland; Yutao Fu; Mark Chaisson; Chunlin Xiao; Jonathan Trow; Stephen T Sherry; Alexander W Zaranek; Madeleine Ball; Jason Bobe; Preston Estep; George M Church; Patrick Marks; Sofia Kyriazopoulou-Panagiotopoulou; Grace X Y Zheng; Michael Schnall-Levin; Heather S Ordonez; Patrice A Mudivarti; Kristina Giorda; Ying Sheng; Karoline Bjarnesdatter Rypdal; Marc Salit Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: L H Castilla; F J Couch; M R Erdos; K F Hoskins; K Calzone; J E Garber; J Boyd; M B Lubin; M L Deshano; L C Brody Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: J Simard; P Tonin; F Durocher; K Morgan; J Rommens; S Gingras; C Samson; J F Leblanc; C Bélanger; F Dion Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1994-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: S González-Santiago; T Ramón Y Cajal; E Aguirre; J E Alés-Martínez; R Andrés; J Balmaña; B Graña; A Herrero; G Llort; A González-Del-Alba Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 3.405
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
Authors: Amanda Ewart Toland; Andrea Forman; Fergus J Couch; Julie O Culver; Diana M Eccles; William D Foulkes; Frans B L Hogervorst; Claude Houdayer; Ephrat Levy-Lahad; Alvaro N Monteiro; Susan L Neuhausen; Sharon E Plon; Shyam K Sharan; Amanda B Spurdle; Csilla Szabo; Lawrence C Brody Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 8.617