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

Current clinical laboratory practice guidelines for next-generation sequencing (NGS) do not provide definitive guidance on confirming NGS variants. Sanger confirmation of NGS results can be inefficient, redundant, and expensive. We evaluated the accuracy of NGS-detected single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertion/deletion variants (indels) and the necessity of NGS variant confirmation using four NGS target-capture gene panels covering 117 genes, 568 Kbp, and 77 patient DNA samples. Unique NGS-detected variants (1080 SNVs and 124 indels) underwent Sanger confirmation and/or were compared to data from the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G). Recurrent variants in unrelated samples resulted in 919 comparisons between NGS and Sanger, with 100% concordance. In a second comparison, 762 unique NGS results (736 SNVs, 26 indels) from seven 1000G samples were found to have 97.1% concordance with 1000G phase 1 data. Sanger sequencing and 1000G phase 3 data confirmed the accuracy of the NGS results for all 1000G phase 1 discrepancies. In all samples, the depth of coverage exceeded 100× in >99.7% of bases in the target regions. In conclusion, confirmatory analysis by Sanger sequencing of SNVs detected via capture-based NGS testing that meets appropriate quality thresholds is unnecessarily redundant. In contrast, Sanger sequencing for indels may be required for defining the correct genomic location, and Sanger may be used for quality-assurance purposes.

[1]  Gonçalo R. Abecasis,et al.  The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools , 2009, Bioinform..

[2]  Sivakumar Gowrisankar,et al.  Evaluation of second-generation sequencing of 19 dilated cardiomyopathy genes for clinical applications. , 2010, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[3]  Joshua L. Deignan,et al.  ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing , 2013, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  Kenny Q. Ye,et al.  An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes , 2012, Nature.

[5]  David R. Murdock,et al.  Whole-Genome Sequencing for Optimized Patient Management , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[6]  R. Sinke,et al.  Targeted Next‐Generation Sequencing can Replace Sanger Sequencing in Clinical Diagnostics , 2013, Human mutation.

[7]  Peter M. Rice,et al.  The Sanger FASTQ file format for sequences with quality scores, and the Solexa/Illumina FASTQ variants , 2009, Nucleic acids research.

[8]  Eric Vilain,et al.  Assessing the necessity of confirmatory testing for exome sequencing results in a clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory , 2014, Genetics in Medicine.

[9]  T. A. Sivakumaran,et al.  Performance Evaluation of the Next-Generation Sequencing Approach for Molecular Diagnosis of Hereditary Hearing Loss , 2013, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[10]  E. Worthey,et al.  Analysis and annotation of whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing-derived variants for clinical diagnosis. , 2013, Current protocols in human genetics.

[11]  E. Worthey.  Analysis and Annotation of Whole‐Genome or Whole‐Exome Sequencing Derived Variants for Clinical Diagnosis , 2017, Current protocols in human genetics.

[12]  Magalie S Leduc,et al.  Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Birgit Funke,et al.  College of American Pathologists' laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing clinical tests. , 2015, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.