Confirmation of Insertion, Deletion, and Deletion-Insertion Variants Detected by Next-Generation Sequencing.
Journal
Clinical chemistry
ISSN: 1530-8561
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9421549
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 10 2023
03 10 2023
Historique:
received:
16
03
2023
accepted:
03
07
2023
medline:
4
10
2023
pubmed:
11
8
2023
entrez:
11
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Despite clinically demonstrated accuracy in next generation sequencing (NGS) data, many clinical laboratories continue to confirm variants with Sanger sequencing, which increases cost of testing and turnaround time. Several studies have assessed the accuracy of NGS in detecting single nucleotide variants; however, less has been reported about insertion, deletion, and deletion-insertion variants (indels). We performed a retrospective analysis from 2015-2022 of indel results from a subset of NGS targeted gene panel tests offered through the Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratories. We compared results from NGS and Sanger sequencing of indels observed in clinical runs and during the intra-assay validation of the tests. Results demonstrated 100% concordance between NGS and Sanger sequencing for over 490 indels (217 unique), ranging in size from 1 to 68 basepairs (bp). The majority of indels were deletions (77%) and 1 to 5 bp in length (90%). Variant frequencies ranged from 11.4% to 67.4% and 85.1% to 100% for heterozygous and homozygous variants, respectively, with a median depth of coverage of 2562×. A subset of indels (7%) were located in complex regions of the genome, and these were accurately detected by NGS. We also demonstrated 100% reproducibility of indel detection (n = 179) during intra-assay validation. Together this data demonstrates that reportable indel variants up to 68 bp can be accurately assessed using NGS, even when they occur in complex regions. Depending on the complexity of the region or variant, Sanger sequence confirmation of indels is usually not necessary if the variants meet appropriate coverage and allele frequency thresholds.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Despite clinically demonstrated accuracy in next generation sequencing (NGS) data, many clinical laboratories continue to confirm variants with Sanger sequencing, which increases cost of testing and turnaround time. Several studies have assessed the accuracy of NGS in detecting single nucleotide variants; however, less has been reported about insertion, deletion, and deletion-insertion variants (indels).
METHODS
We performed a retrospective analysis from 2015-2022 of indel results from a subset of NGS targeted gene panel tests offered through the Mayo Clinic Genomics Laboratories. We compared results from NGS and Sanger sequencing of indels observed in clinical runs and during the intra-assay validation of the tests.
RESULTS
Results demonstrated 100% concordance between NGS and Sanger sequencing for over 490 indels (217 unique), ranging in size from 1 to 68 basepairs (bp). The majority of indels were deletions (77%) and 1 to 5 bp in length (90%). Variant frequencies ranged from 11.4% to 67.4% and 85.1% to 100% for heterozygous and homozygous variants, respectively, with a median depth of coverage of 2562×. A subset of indels (7%) were located in complex regions of the genome, and these were accurately detected by NGS. We also demonstrated 100% reproducibility of indel detection (n = 179) during intra-assay validation.
CONCLUSIONS
Together this data demonstrates that reportable indel variants up to 68 bp can be accurately assessed using NGS, even when they occur in complex regions. Depending on the complexity of the region or variant, Sanger sequence confirmation of indels is usually not necessary if the variants meet appropriate coverage and allele frequency thresholds.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37566393
pii: 7241387
doi: 10.1093/clinchem/hvad110
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1155-1162Informations de copyright
© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.