-
Something wrong with this record ?
Standardization of Sequencing Coverage Depth in NGS: Recommendation for Detection of Clonal and Subclonal Mutations in Cancer Diagnostics
A. Petrackova, M. Vasinek, L. Sedlarikova, T. Dyskova, P. Schneiderova, T. Novosad, T. Papajik, E. Kriegova,
Language English Country Switzerland
Document type Journal Article
Grant support
NV16-32339A
MZ0
CEP Register
Digital library NLK
Full text - Article
NLK
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2011
Free Medical Journals
from 2011
PubMed Central
from 2011
Europe PubMed Central
from 2011
Open Access Digital Library
from 2011-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2011-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2011
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
The insufficient standardization of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) still limits its implementation in clinical practice, with the correct detection of mutations at low variant allele frequencies (VAF) facing particular challenges. We address here the standardization of sequencing coverage depth in order to minimize the probability of false positive and false negative results, the latter being underestimated in clinical NGS. There is currently no consensus on the minimum coverage depth, and so each laboratory has to set its own parameters. To assist laboratories with the determination of the minimum coverage parameters, we provide here a user-friendly coverage calculator. Using the sequencing error only, we recommend a minimum depth of coverage of 1,650 together with a threshold of at least 30 mutated reads for a targeted NGS mutation analysis of ≥3% VAF, based on the binomial probability distribution. Moreover, our calculator also allows adding assay-specific errors occurring during DNA processing and library preparation, thus calculating with an overall error of a specific NGS assay. The estimation of correct coverage depth is recommended as a starting point when assessing thresholds of NGS assay. Our study also points to the need for guidance regarding the minimum technical requirements, which based on our experience should include the limit of detection (LOD), overall NGS assay error, input, source and quality of DNA, coverage depth, number of variant supporting reads, and total number of target reads covering variant region. Further studies are needed to define the minimum technical requirements and its reporting in diagnostic NGS.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc19035649
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20191011114912.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 191007s2019 sz f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.3389/fonc.2019.00851 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)31552176
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a sz
- 100 1_
- $a Petrackova, Anna $u Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 245 10
- $a Standardization of Sequencing Coverage Depth in NGS: Recommendation for Detection of Clonal and Subclonal Mutations in Cancer Diagnostics / $c A. Petrackova, M. Vasinek, L. Sedlarikova, T. Dyskova, P. Schneiderova, T. Novosad, T. Papajik, E. Kriegova,
- 520 9_
- $a The insufficient standardization of diagnostic next-generation sequencing (NGS) still limits its implementation in clinical practice, with the correct detection of mutations at low variant allele frequencies (VAF) facing particular challenges. We address here the standardization of sequencing coverage depth in order to minimize the probability of false positive and false negative results, the latter being underestimated in clinical NGS. There is currently no consensus on the minimum coverage depth, and so each laboratory has to set its own parameters. To assist laboratories with the determination of the minimum coverage parameters, we provide here a user-friendly coverage calculator. Using the sequencing error only, we recommend a minimum depth of coverage of 1,650 together with a threshold of at least 30 mutated reads for a targeted NGS mutation analysis of ≥3% VAF, based on the binomial probability distribution. Moreover, our calculator also allows adding assay-specific errors occurring during DNA processing and library preparation, thus calculating with an overall error of a specific NGS assay. The estimation of correct coverage depth is recommended as a starting point when assessing thresholds of NGS assay. Our study also points to the need for guidance regarding the minimum technical requirements, which based on our experience should include the limit of detection (LOD), overall NGS assay error, input, source and quality of DNA, coverage depth, number of variant supporting reads, and total number of target reads covering variant region. Further studies are needed to define the minimum technical requirements and its reporting in diagnostic NGS.
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Vasinek, Michal $u Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Sedlarikova, Lenka $u Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Dyskova, Tereza $u Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Schneiderova, Petra $u Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Novosad, Tomas $u Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technical University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Papajik, Tomas $u Department of Hemato-Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 700 1_
- $a Kriegova, Eva $u Department of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Olomouc, Czechia.
- 773 0_
- $w MED00182989 $t Frontiers in oncology $x 2234-943X $g Roč. 9, č. - (2019), s. 851
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31552176 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20191007 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20191011115332 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ind $b bmc $g 1452309 $s 1074199
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2019 $b 9 $c - $d 851 $e 20190904 $i 2234-943X $m Frontiers in oncology $n Front Oncol $x MED00182989
- GRA __
- $a NV16-32339A $p MZ0
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20191007