Bioinformatics and DNA-extraction strategies to reliably detect genetic variants from FFPE breast tissue samples.
Breast tissue
DNA sequencing
Formalin-fixed tissue
Molecular barcode
Mutational signature
Target sequencing panel
Variant filtering
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2019
02 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
22
08
2019
entrez:
4
9
2019
pubmed:
4
9
2019
medline:
25
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Archived formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) samples are valuable clinical resources to examine clinically relevant morphology features and also to study genetic changes. However, DNA quality and quantity of FFPE samples are often sub-optimal, and resulting NGS-based genetics variant detections are prone to false positives. Evaluations of wet-lab and bioinformatics approaches are needed to optimize variant detection from FFPE samples. As a pilot study, we designed within-subject triplicate samples of DNA derived from paired FFPE and fresh frozen breast tissues to highlight FFPE-specific artifacts. For FFPE samples, we tested two FFPE DNA extraction methods to determine impact of wet-lab procedures on variant calling: QIAGEN QIAamp DNA Mini Kit ("QA"), and QIAGEN GeneRead DNA FFPE Kit ("QGR"). We also used negative-control (NA12891) and positive control samples (Horizon Discovery Reference Standard FFPE). All DNA sample libraries were prepared for NGS according to the QIAseq Human Breast Cancer Targeted DNA Panel protocol and sequenced on the HiSeq 4000. Variant calling and filtering were performed using QIAGEN Gene Globe Data Portal. Detailed variant concordance comparisons and mutational signature analysis were performed to investigate effects of FFPE samples compared to paired fresh frozen samples, along with different DNA extraction methods. In this study, we found that five times or more variants were called with FFPE samples, compared to their paired fresh-frozen tissue samples even after applying molecular barcoding error-correction and default bioinformatics filtering recommended by the vendor. We also found that QGR as an optimized FFPE-DNA extraction approach leads to much fewer discordant variants between paired fresh frozen and FFPE samples. Approximately 92% of the uniquely called FFPE variants were of low allelic frequency range (< 5%), and collectively shared a "C > T|G > A" mutational signature known to be representative of FFPE artifacts resulting from cytosine deamination. Based on control samples and FFPE-frozen replicates, we derived an effective filtering strategy with associated empirical false-discovery estimates. Through this study, we demonstrated feasibility of calling and filtering genetic variants from FFPE tissue samples using a combined strategy with molecular barcodes, optimized DNA extraction, and bioinformatics methods incorporating genomics context such as mutational signature and variant allelic frequency.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Archived formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) samples are valuable clinical resources to examine clinically relevant morphology features and also to study genetic changes. However, DNA quality and quantity of FFPE samples are often sub-optimal, and resulting NGS-based genetics variant detections are prone to false positives. Evaluations of wet-lab and bioinformatics approaches are needed to optimize variant detection from FFPE samples.
RESULTS
RESULTS
As a pilot study, we designed within-subject triplicate samples of DNA derived from paired FFPE and fresh frozen breast tissues to highlight FFPE-specific artifacts. For FFPE samples, we tested two FFPE DNA extraction methods to determine impact of wet-lab procedures on variant calling: QIAGEN QIAamp DNA Mini Kit ("QA"), and QIAGEN GeneRead DNA FFPE Kit ("QGR"). We also used negative-control (NA12891) and positive control samples (Horizon Discovery Reference Standard FFPE). All DNA sample libraries were prepared for NGS according to the QIAseq Human Breast Cancer Targeted DNA Panel protocol and sequenced on the HiSeq 4000. Variant calling and filtering were performed using QIAGEN Gene Globe Data Portal. Detailed variant concordance comparisons and mutational signature analysis were performed to investigate effects of FFPE samples compared to paired fresh frozen samples, along with different DNA extraction methods. In this study, we found that five times or more variants were called with FFPE samples, compared to their paired fresh-frozen tissue samples even after applying molecular barcoding error-correction and default bioinformatics filtering recommended by the vendor. We also found that QGR as an optimized FFPE-DNA extraction approach leads to much fewer discordant variants between paired fresh frozen and FFPE samples. Approximately 92% of the uniquely called FFPE variants were of low allelic frequency range (< 5%), and collectively shared a "C > T|G > A" mutational signature known to be representative of FFPE artifacts resulting from cytosine deamination. Based on control samples and FFPE-frozen replicates, we derived an effective filtering strategy with associated empirical false-discovery estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Through this study, we demonstrated feasibility of calling and filtering genetic variants from FFPE tissue samples using a combined strategy with molecular barcodes, optimized DNA extraction, and bioinformatics methods incorporating genomics context such as mutational signature and variant allelic frequency.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31477010
doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-6056-8
pii: 10.1186/s12864-019-6056-8
pmc: PMC6720378
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA, Neoplasm
0
Fixatives
0
Formaldehyde
1HG84L3525
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
689Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA116201
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA187112
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institute of Health
ID : CA187112-01
Organisme : Mayo Clinic Breast SPORE Biospecimen Rersource for Breast Cancer Research
ID : CA116201
Références
N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 2;354(5):526-8; author reply 526-8
pubmed: 16452569
PLoS One. 2009;4(5):e5548
pubmed: 19440246
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009 Jul;9(5):417-22
pubmed: 19580427
BMC Med Genomics. 2011 Sep 29;4:68
pubmed: 21958464
J Mol Diagn. 2013 Sep;15(5):623-33
pubmed: 23810758
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Aug;141(1):13-22
pubmed: 23974828
Mol Diagn Ther. 2014 Oct;18(5):587-93
pubmed: 25091469
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 08;9(8):e104566
pubmed: 25105902
Clin Chem. 2015 Jan;61(1):64-71
pubmed: 25421801
BMC Genomics. 2015 Aug 07;16:589
pubmed: 26248467
BMC Genomics. 2017 Jan 3;18(1):5
pubmed: 28049435
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jun 20;45(11):e103
pubmed: 28369524
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Jun 1;23(11):2617-2629
pubmed: 28572256
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Nov;166(2):641-650
pubmed: 28798985
PLoS One. 2018 Apr 5;13(4):e0195471
pubmed: 29621323
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jun;118(12):1662-1664
pubmed: 29872146