Dataset Information

Comparison of four next generation sequencing platforms for fusion detection: Oncomine by ThermoFisher, AmpliSeq by illumina, FusionPlex by ArcherDX, and QIAseq by QIAGEN.

ABSTRACT: As fusion detection NGS techniques are adopted by clinical labs, assay performance comparison is urgently needed. We compared four fusion-detection assay platforms on a pilot cohort of 24 prostate cancer samples: (1) Oncomine Comprehensive panel v3; (2) AmpliSeq comprehensive panel v3; (3) The solid tumor panel of FusionPlex; and (4) The human oncology panel of QIAseq. The assays were compared for the detection of different types of fusion based on whether the partner gene or the breakpoints are known. All assays detected fusion with known gene partners and known breakpoint, represented by TMPRSS2-ERG. A fusion with known partners but unknown breakpoint, TMPRSS2-ETV4, was reported by OCAv3 and FusionPlex, but not by AICv3 because the specific breakpoint was not in the manifest, nor by QIAseq since the panel did not target the exact exons involved. For fusion with unknown partners, FusionPlex identified the largest number of ETV1 fusions because it had the highest exon coverage for ETV1. Among these, SNRPN-ETV1 and MALAT1-ETV1, were novel findings. To determine reportability of low-level calls of highly prevalent fusions, such as TMPRSS2-ERG, we propose the use of percent fusion reads over total number of reads per sample instead of the fusion read count.

SUBMITTER: Qu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9434709 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of four next generation sequencing platforms for fusion detection: Oncomine by ThermoFisher, AmpliSeq by illumina, FusionPlex by ArcherDX, and QIAseq by QIAGEN.

Qu Xiaoyu X Yeung Cecilia C Coleman Ilsa I Nelson Peter S PS Fang Min M

Cancer genetics 20200307

As fusion detection NGS techniques are adopted by clinical labs, assay performance comparison is urgently needed. We compared four fusion-detection assay platforms on a pilot cohort of 24 prostate cancer samples: (1) Oncomine Comprehensive panel v3; (2) AmpliSeq comprehensive panel v3; (3) The solid tumor panel of FusionPlex; and (4) The human oncology panel of QIAseq. The assays were compared for the detection of different types of fusion based on whether the partner gene or the breakpoints are ...[more]

PMID: 32197218

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The introduction of benchtop sequencers has made adoption of whole genome sequencing possible for a broader community of researchers than ever before. Concurrently, metagenomic sequencing (MGS) is rapidly emerging as a tool for interrogating complex samples that defy conventional analyses. In addition, next-generation sequencers are increasingly being used in clinical or related settings, for instance to track outbreaks. However, information regarding the analytical sensitivity or limit of detection (LoD) of benchtop sequencers is currently lacking. Furthermore, the specificity of sequence information at or near the LoD is unknown. RESULTS: In the present study, we assess the ability of three next-generation sequencing platforms to identify a pathogen (viral or bacterial) present in low titers in a clinically relevant sample (blood). Our results indicate that the Roche-454 Titanium platform is capable of detecting Dengue virus at titers as low as 1X102.5 pfu/mL, corresponding to an estimated 5.4X104 genome copies/ml maximum. The increased throughput of the benchtop sequencers, the Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq platforms, enabled detection of viral genomes at concentrations as low as 1X104 genome copies/mL. Platform-specific biases were evident in sequence read distributions as well as viral genome coverage. For bacterial samples, only the MiSeq platform was able to provide sequencing reads that could be unambiguously classified as originating from Bacillus anthracis. CONCLUSION: The analytical sensitivity of all three platforms approaches that of standard qPCR assays. Although all platforms were able to detect pathogens at the levels tested, there were several noteworthy differences. The Roche-454 Titanium platform produced consistently longer reads, even when compared with the latest chemistry updates for the PGM platform. The MiSeq platform produced consistently greater depth and breadth of coverage, while the Ion Torrent was unequaled for speed of sequencing. None of the platforms were able to verify a single nucleotide polymorphism responsible for antiviral resistance in an Influenza A strain isolated from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Overall, the benchtop platforms perform well for identification of pathogens from a representative clinical sample. However, unlike identification, characterization of pathogens is likely to require higher titers, multiple libraries and/or multiple sequencing runs.

Dataset Information

Comparison of four next generation sequencing platforms for fusion detection: Oncomine by ThermoFisher, AmpliSeq by illumina, FusionPlex by ArcherDX, and QIAseq by QIAGEN.

Publications

Comparison of four next generation sequencing platforms for fusion detection: Oncomine by ThermoFisher, AmpliSeq by illumina, FusionPlex by ArcherDX, and QIAseq by QIAGEN.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets