Back

Performance comparison: exome-sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger-sequencing

Fridman, H.; Bormans, C.; Einhorn, M.; Au, D.; Bormans, A.; Porat, Y.; Sanchez, L. F.; Manning, B.; Levy-Lahad, E.; Behar, D. M.

2020-11-29 genetics
10.1101/2020.11.29.400853 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Systematic performance comparing the results of exome-sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger-sequencing of targeted gene(s) is still lacking. In this study we compared Sanger-sequencing results of 258 genes to those obtained from next generation sequencing (NGS) using two exome-sequencing enrichment kits: Agilent-SureSelectQXT and Illumina-Nextera. Sequencing was performed on leukocytes and buccal-derived DNA from a single individual, and all 258 genes were sequenced a total of 11 times (using different sequencing methods and DNA sources). Sanger-sequencing was completed for all exons, including flanking {+/-}8bp regions. For the 258 genes, NGS mean coverage was >20x for >98% and >91% of the regions targeted by SureSelect and Nextera, respectively. Overall, 449 variants were identified in at least one experiment, and 407/449 (90.6%) were detected by all. Of the 42 discordant variants, 23 were determined as true calls, summing-up to a truth set of 430 variants. Sensitivity of true-variant detection was 99% for Sanger-sequencing and 97%-100% for the NGS experiments. Mean false-positive rates were 3.7E-6 for Sanger-sequencing, 2.5E-6 for SureSelect-NGS and 5.2E-6 for Nextera-NGS. Our findings suggest a high overall concordance between Sanger-sequencing and NGS. Both methods demonstrated false positive and false negative calls and similar performances. Consequently, high clinical suspicion for a specific diagnosis should override negative results of either Sanger-sequencing or NGS.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
23.0%
2
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.9%
3
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.3%
5
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
6
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
7
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
8
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
9
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
10
BioTechniques
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
11
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
12
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
13
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
15
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
16
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
18
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
19
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%
20
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
21
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
24
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
25
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%