Cargando…

A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal

A key constraint in genomic testing in oncology is that matched normal specimens are not commonly obtained in clinical practice. Thus, while well-characterized genomic alterations do not require normal tissue for interpretation, a significant number of alterations will be unknown in whether they are...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, James X., He, Yuting, Sanford, Eric, Montesion, Meagan, Frampton, Garrett M., Vignot, Stéphane, Soria, Jean-Charles, Ross, Jeffrey S., Miller, Vincent A., Stephens, Phil J., Lipson, Doron, Yelensky, Roman
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5832436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005965
_version_ 1783303323218083840
author Sun, James X.
He, Yuting
Sanford, Eric
Montesion, Meagan
Frampton, Garrett M.
Vignot, Stéphane
Soria, Jean-Charles
Ross, Jeffrey S.
Miller, Vincent A.
Stephens, Phil J.
Lipson, Doron
Yelensky, Roman
author_facet Sun, James X.
He, Yuting
Sanford, Eric
Montesion, Meagan
Frampton, Garrett M.
Vignot, Stéphane
Soria, Jean-Charles
Ross, Jeffrey S.
Miller, Vincent A.
Stephens, Phil J.
Lipson, Doron
Yelensky, Roman
author_sort Sun, James X.
collection PubMed
description A key constraint in genomic testing in oncology is that matched normal specimens are not commonly obtained in clinical practice. Thus, while well-characterized genomic alterations do not require normal tissue for interpretation, a significant number of alterations will be unknown in whether they are germline or somatic, in the absence of a matched normal control. We introduce SGZ (somatic-germline-zygosity), a computational method for predicting somatic vs. germline origin and homozygous vs. heterozygous or sub-clonal state of variants identified from deep massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of cancer specimens. The method does not require a patient matched normal control, enabling broad application in clinical research. SGZ predicts the somatic vs. germline status of each alteration identified by modeling the alteration’s allele frequency (AF), taking into account the tumor content, tumor ploidy, and the local copy number. Accuracy of the prediction depends on the depth of sequencing and copy number model fit, which are achieved in our clinical assay by sequencing to high depth (>500x) using MPS, covering 394 cancer-related genes and over 3,500 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Calls are made using a statistic based on read depth and local variability of SNP AF. To validate the method, we first evaluated performance on samples from 30 lung and colon cancer patients, where we sequenced tumors and matched normal tissue. We examined predictions for 17 somatic hotspot mutations and 20 common germline SNPs in 20,182 clinical cancer specimens. To assess the impact of stromal admixture, we examined three cell lines, which were titrated with their matched normal to six levels (10–75%). Overall, predictions were made in 85% of cases, with 95–99% of variants predicted correctly, a significantly superior performance compared to a basic approach based on AF alone. We then applied the SGZ method to the COSMIC database of known somatic variants in cancer and found >50 that are in fact more likely to be germline.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5832436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58324362018-03-23 A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal Sun, James X. He, Yuting Sanford, Eric Montesion, Meagan Frampton, Garrett M. Vignot, Stéphane Soria, Jean-Charles Ross, Jeffrey S. Miller, Vincent A. Stephens, Phil J. Lipson, Doron Yelensky, Roman PLoS Comput Biol Research Article A key constraint in genomic testing in oncology is that matched normal specimens are not commonly obtained in clinical practice. Thus, while well-characterized genomic alterations do not require normal tissue for interpretation, a significant number of alterations will be unknown in whether they are germline or somatic, in the absence of a matched normal control. We introduce SGZ (somatic-germline-zygosity), a computational method for predicting somatic vs. germline origin and homozygous vs. heterozygous or sub-clonal state of variants identified from deep massively parallel sequencing (MPS) of cancer specimens. The method does not require a patient matched normal control, enabling broad application in clinical research. SGZ predicts the somatic vs. germline status of each alteration identified by modeling the alteration’s allele frequency (AF), taking into account the tumor content, tumor ploidy, and the local copy number. Accuracy of the prediction depends on the depth of sequencing and copy number model fit, which are achieved in our clinical assay by sequencing to high depth (>500x) using MPS, covering 394 cancer-related genes and over 3,500 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Calls are made using a statistic based on read depth and local variability of SNP AF. To validate the method, we first evaluated performance on samples from 30 lung and colon cancer patients, where we sequenced tumors and matched normal tissue. We examined predictions for 17 somatic hotspot mutations and 20 common germline SNPs in 20,182 clinical cancer specimens. To assess the impact of stromal admixture, we examined three cell lines, which were titrated with their matched normal to six levels (10–75%). Overall, predictions were made in 85% of cases, with 95–99% of variants predicted correctly, a significantly superior performance compared to a basic approach based on AF alone. We then applied the SGZ method to the COSMIC database of known somatic variants in cancer and found >50 that are in fact more likely to be germline. Public Library of Science 2018-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5832436/ /pubmed/29415044 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005965 Text en © 2018 Sun et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sun, James X.
He, Yuting
Sanford, Eric
Montesion, Meagan
Frampton, Garrett M.
Vignot, Stéphane
Soria, Jean-Charles
Ross, Jeffrey S.
Miller, Vincent A.
Stephens, Phil J.
Lipson, Doron
Yelensky, Roman
A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title_full A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title_fullStr A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title_full_unstemmed A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title_short A computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
title_sort computational approach to distinguish somatic vs. germline origin of genomic alterations from deep sequencing of cancer specimens without a matched normal
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5832436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29415044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005965
work_keys_str_mv AT sunjamesx acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT heyuting acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT sanforderic acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT montesionmeagan acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT framptongarrettm acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT vignotstephane acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT soriajeancharles acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT rossjeffreys acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT millervincenta acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT stephensphilj acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT lipsondoron acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT yelenskyroman acomputationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT sunjamesx computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT heyuting computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT sanforderic computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT montesionmeagan computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT framptongarrettm computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT vignotstephane computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT soriajeancharles computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT rossjeffreys computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT millervincenta computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT stephensphilj computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT lipsondoron computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal
AT yelenskyroman computationalapproachtodistinguishsomaticvsgermlineoriginofgenomicalterationsfromdeepsequencingofcancerspecimenswithoutamatchednormal