Confirming variants in next-generation sequencing panel testing by sanger sequencing

Linnea M. Baudhuin, Susan A. Lagerstedt, Eric W. Klee, Numrah Fadra, Devin Oglesbee, Matthew J. Ferber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

68 Scopus citations

Abstract

Current clinical laboratory practice guidelines for next-generation sequencing (NGS) do not provide definitive guidance on confirming NGS variants. Sanger confirmation of NGS results can be inefficient, redundant, and expensive. We evaluated the accuracy of NGS-detected single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertion/deletion variants (indels) and the necessity of NGS variant confirmation using four NGS target-capture gene panels covering 117 genes, 568 Kbp, and 77 patient DNA samples. Unique NGS-detected variants (1080 SNVs and 124 indels) underwent Sanger confirmation and/or were compared to data from the 1000 Genomes Project (1000G). Recurrent variants in unrelated samples resulted in 919 comparisons between NGS and Sanger, with 100% concordance. In a second comparison, 762 unique NGS results (736 SNVs, 26 indels) from seven 1000G samples were found to have 97.1% concordance with 1000G phase 1 data. Sanger sequencing and 1000G phase 3 data confirmed the accuracy of the NGS results for all 1000G phase 1 discrepancies. In all samples, the depth of coverage exceeded 100× in >99.7% of bases in the target regions. In conclusion, confirmatory analysis by Sanger sequencing of SNVs detected via capture-based NGS testing that meets appropriate quality thresholds is unnecessarily redundant. In contrast, Sanger sequencing for indels may be required for defining the correct genomic location, and Sanger may be used for quality-assurance purposes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)456-461
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Molecular Diagnostics
Volume17
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Molecular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Confirming variants in next-generation sequencing panel testing by sanger sequencing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this