Sample-Index Misassignment Impacts Tumour Exome Sequencing

Sample pooling enabled by dedicated indexes is a common strategy for cost-effective and robust high-throughput sequencing. Index misassignment leading to mutual contamination between pooled samples has however been described as a general problem of the latest Illumina sequencing instruments utilizing exclusion amplification. Using real-life data from multiple tumour sequencing projects, we demonstrate that index misassignment can induce artefactual variant calls closely resembling true, high-quality somatic variants. These artefactual calls potentially impact cancer applications utilizing low allelic frequencies, such as in clonal analysis of tumours. We discuss the available countermeasures with an emphasis on improved library indexing methods, and provide software that can assist in the identification of variants that may be consequences of index misassignment.

[1]  Richard Durbin,et al.  Sequence analysis Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows – Wheeler transform , 2009 .

[2]  M. DePristo,et al.  The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. , 2010, Genome research.

[3]  Wendy S. W. Wong,et al.  Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor-normal sample pairs , 2012, Bioinform..

[4]  A. McKenna,et al.  Absolute quantification of somatic DNA alterations in human cancer , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[5]  Levi A Garraway,et al.  Genomics-driven oncology: framework for an emerging paradigm. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  A. McKenna,et al.  Evolution and Impact of Subclonal Mutations in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia , 2012, Cell.

[7]  A. Sivachenko,et al.  Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  Donavan T. Cheng,et al.  Memorial Sloan Kettering-Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets (MSK-IMPACT): A Hybridization Capture-Based Next-Generation Sequencing Clinical Assay for Solid Tumor Molecular Oncology. , 2015, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[9]  Michael C. Heinold,et al.  A comprehensive assessment of somatic mutation detection in cancer using whole-genome sequencing , 2015, Nature Communications.

[10]  Z. Szallasi,et al.  Clonal status of actionable driver events and the timing of mutational processes in cancer evolution , 2015, Science Translational Medicine.

[11]  Yoon-La Choi,et al.  Mechanisms and Consequences of Cancer Genome Instability: Lessons from Genome Sequencing Studies. , 2016, Annual review of pathology.

[12]  L. Loeb,et al.  The influence of subclonal resistance mutations on targeted cancer therapy , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Vladimir Vacic,et al.  Conpair: concordance and contamination estimator for matched tumor–normal pairs , 2016, Bioinform..

[14]  Nayoung K. D. Kim,et al.  Deciphering intratumor heterogeneity using cancer genome analysis , 2016, Human Genetics.

[15]  Donavan T. Cheng,et al.  Mutational Landscape of Metastatic Cancer Revealed from Prospective Clinical Sequencing of 10,000 Patients , 2017, Nature Medicine.

[16]  I. Weissman,et al.  Index switching causes “spreading-of-signal” among multiplexed samples in Illumina HiSeq 4000 DNA sequencing , 2017, bioRxiv.

[17]  Pingfang Liu,et al.  DNA damage is a pervasive cause of sequencing errors, directly confounding variant identification , 2017, Science.

[18]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  CIViC is a community knowledgebase for expert crowdsourcing the clinical interpretation of variants in cancer , 2017, Nature Genetics.

[19]  Yossi Farjoun,et al.  Characterization and remediation of sample index swaps by non-redundant dual indexing on massively parallel sequencing platforms , 2017, BMC Genomics.