Back

Quality threshold evaluation of Sanger confirmation for results of whole exome sequencing in clinically diagnostic setting

Seo, G. H.; Kim, H.; Kye, M.; Park, J.-Y.; Won, D.-g.; Lee, J.

2020-12-09 genetics
10.1101/2020.12.08.416792 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundWith the ability to simultaneously sequence more than 5,000 disease-associated genes, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has replaced Sanger sequencing as the preferred method in the diagnostic field at the laboratory level. However, Sanger sequencing has been used routinely to confirm identified variants prior to reporting results. This validation process causes a turnaround time delay and cost increase. Thus, this study aimed to set a quality threshold that does not require Sanger confirmation by analyzing the characteristics of identified variants from whole exome sequencing (WES). MethodsOur study analyzed data on a total of 694 disease-causing variants from 578 WES samples that had been diagnosed with suspected genetic disease. These samples were sequenced by Novaseq6000 and Exome Research Panel v2. All 694 variants (513 single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and 181 indels) were validated by Sanger sequencing. ResultsA total of 693 variants included 512 SNVs and 181 indels from 578 patients and 367 genes. Five hundred seven heterozygous SNVs with at > 250 quality score and > 0.3 allele fraction were 100% confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Five heterozygous variants and one homozygous variant were not confirmed by Sanger sequencing, which showed 98.8% accuracy. There were 146 heterozygous variants and 35 homozygous variants among 181 indels, of which 11 heterozygous variants were not confirmed by Sanger sequencing (93.9% accuracy). Five non-confirmed variants with high quality were not identified on the ram .bam file. ConclusionOur results indicate that Sanger confirmation is not necessary for exome-derived SNVs with > 250 quality score and 0.3 > allele fraction set to an appropriate quality threshold. Indels or SNVs that do not meet the quality threshold should be reviewed by raw .bam file and Sanger confirmation should be performed to ensure accurate reporting.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.1%
4
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
6
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.6%
7
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.7%
8
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
9
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
10
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
12
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
13
Journal of Genetics and Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
BioTechniques
24 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
15
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
16
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
BMC Genomics
328 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
18
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
19
Molecular Biology Reports
19 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 25%
0.7%
21
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
Genome Biology
555 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
23
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%
26
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
27
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.6%