Development and Validation of Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for Detection of Germline Variants in Inherited Diseases.

CONTEXT - The number of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for genetic diseases offered by clinical laboratories is rapidly increasing. Before an NGS-based test is implemented in a clinical laboratory, appropriate validation studies are needed to determine the performance characteristics of the test. OBJECTIVE - To provide examples of assay design and validation of targeted NGS gene panels for the detection of germline variants associated with inherited disorders. DATA SOURCES - The approaches used by 2 clinical laboratories for the development and validation of targeted NGS gene panels are described. Important design and validation considerations are examined. CONCLUSIONS - Clinical laboratories must validate performance specifications of each test prior to implementation. Test design specifications and validation data are provided, outlining important steps in validation of targeted NGS panels by clinical diagnostic laboratories.

[1]  Marni J. Falk,et al.  FGFR-Related Craniosynostosis Syndromes , 2011 .

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

[3]  M. Metzker.  Sequencing technologies — the next generation , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  Christoph Endrullat,et al.  Standardization and quality management in next-generation sequencing , 2016, Applied & translational genomics.

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

[6]  Genotype-based databases for variants causing rare diseases. , 2014, Gene.

[7]  Bale,et al.  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 , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  J. Zook,et al.  Integrating human sequence data sets provides a resource of benchmark SNP and indel genotype calls , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[9]  Shing‐Jong Lin,et al.  High Incidence of the Cardiac Variant of Fabry Disease Revealed by Newborn Screening in the Taiwan Chinese Population , 2009, Circulation. Cardiovascular genetics.

[10]  Gonçalo R. Abecasis,et al.  The variant call format and VCFtools , 2011, Bioinform..

[11]  Joseph T. Glessner,et al.  Genome‐wide SNP genotyping identifies the Stereocilin (STRC) gene as a major contributor to pediatric bilateral sensorineural hearing impairment , 2012, American journal of medical genetics. Part A.

[12]  Iris Schrijver,et al.  Verification of performance specifications of a molecular test: cystic fibrosis carrier testing using the Luminex liquid bead array. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[13]  Emily H Turner,et al.  Target-enrichment strategies for next-generation sequencing , 2010, Nature Methods.

[14]  Helga Thorvaldsdóttir,et al.  Integrative Genomics Viewer , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  W. Grody,et al.  ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations: Revisions 2007 , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  Whitney Wooderchak-Donahue,et al.  Design and analytical validation of clinical DNA sequencing assays. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[17]  A. V. D. van den Ouweland,et al.  Paternal origin of FGFR3 mutations in Muenke-type craniosynostosis , 2004, Human Genetics.

[18]  Thomas A. Peterson,et al.  Towards precision medicine: advances in computational approaches for the analysis of human variants. , 2013, Journal of molecular biology.

[19]  Sivakumar Gowrisankar,et al.  Comprehensive diagnostic testing for stereocilin: an approach for analyzing medically important genes with high homology. , 2014, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[20]  Justin M. Zook.  Extensive sequencing of seven human genomes to characterize benchmark reference materials , 2015 .

[21]  N. Lennon,et al.  Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data , 2013, Genome Biology.

[22]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Detecting Copy Number Variation via Next Generation Technology , 2016, Current Genetic Medicine Reports.

[23]  M. Gulley,et al.  Recommended principles and practices for validating clinical molecular pathology tests. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[24]  Birgit Funke,et al.  Navigating highly homologous genes in a molecular diagnostic setting: a resource for clinical next-generation sequencing , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[25]  Soma Das,et al.  Technical Standards and Guidelines: Molecular Genetic Testing for Ultra-Rare Disorders , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  Shashikant Kulkarni,et al.  Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical laboratory practice , 2012, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  H. Hakonarson,et al.  Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genome Medicine.

[28]  Vincent Ferretti,et al.  Clinical genomics information management software linking cancer genome sequence and clinical decisions. , 2013, Genomics.

[29]  P. Ros Pérez,et al.  [Muenke syndrome]. , 2020, Anales de pediatria.

[30]  E. Mardis.  Next-generation sequencing platforms. , 2013, Annual review of analytical chemistry.

[31]  Heidi L Rehm,et al.  ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  Ricardo Villamarín-Salomón,et al.  ClinVar: public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[33]  P. D. Rijk,et al.  Optimized filtering reduces the error rate in detecting genomic variants by short-read sequencing , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.