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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |