Abstract

BackgroundMore than 11,000 laboratories and companies developed their own next-generation sequencing (NGS) for screening and diagnosis of various diseases including cancer. Although inconsistencies of mutation calls as high as 43% in databases such as GDSC (Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer) and CCLE (Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia) have been reported, not many studies on the reasons for the inconsistencies have been published. Methods: Targeted-NGS analysis of 151 genes in 35 cell lines common to GDSC and CCLE was performed, and the results were compared with those from GDSC and CCLE wherein whole-exome- or highly-multiplex NGS were employed.ResultsIn the comparison, GDSC and CCLE had a high rate (40–45%) of false-negative (FN) errors which would lead to high rate of inconsistent mutation calls, suggesting that highly-multiplex NGS may have high rate of FN errors. We also posited the possibility that targeted NGS, especially for the detection of low-level cancer cells in cancer tissues might suffer significant FN errors.ConclusionFN errors may be the most important errors in NGS testing for cancer; their evaluation in laboratory-developed NGS tests is needed.

Highlights

  • GDSC and CCLE had a high rate (40–45%) of false-negative (FN) errors which would lead to high rate of inconsistent mutation calls, suggesting that highly-multiplex next-generation sequencing (NGS) may have high rate of FN errors

  • Mutation calls from two cell-line databases including GDSC (Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer) and CCLE (Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia) were constructed by wholeexome- or equivalently highly-multiplex NGS; inconsistent mutation calls have been reported to be as high as 43% [8], suggesting a possible high rate of error in NGS

  • We performed targeted next-generation sequencing (T-NGS) to investigate the reasons for inconsistencies in mutation calls between GDSC and CCLE, which databases had been constructed by whole-exome- or equivalently highly-multiplex NGS

Read more

Summary

Background

More than 11,000 laboratories and companies developed their own next-generation sequencing (NGS) for screening and diagnosis of various diseases including cancer. Inconsistencies of mutation calls as high as 43% in databases such as GDSC (Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer) and CCLE (Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia) have been reported, not many studies on the reasons for the inconsistencies have been published. Methods: Targeted-NGS analysis of 151 genes in 35 cell lines common to GDSC and CCLE was performed, and the results were compared with those from GDSC and CCLE wherein whole-exome- or highly-multiplex NGS were employed. Data Availability Statement: MAF files from our targeted NGS in 35 cell lines are available at https:// github.com/gensdei/CellineTargetedSeq as described in Materials and Methods. All other data are available in supplementary tables

Results
Conclusion
Introduction
Materials and methods
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call