Cargando…

Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT

BACKGROUND: Sufficient fetal fraction (FF) is crucial for quality control of NIPT (Non‐Invasive Prenatal Test) results. Different factors influencing bioinformatic estimation of FF should be considered when implementing NIPT. To what extent the total number of sequencing reads influences FF estimate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Miceikaitė, Ieva, Brasch‐Andersen, Charlotte, Fagerberg, Christina, Larsen, Martin Jakob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8123752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33687149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1653
_version_ 1783692996390158336
author Miceikaitė, Ieva
Brasch‐Andersen, Charlotte
Fagerberg, Christina
Larsen, Martin Jakob
author_facet Miceikaitė, Ieva
Brasch‐Andersen, Charlotte
Fagerberg, Christina
Larsen, Martin Jakob
author_sort Miceikaitė, Ieva
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Sufficient fetal fraction (FF) is crucial for quality control of NIPT (Non‐Invasive Prenatal Test) results. Different factors influencing bioinformatic estimation of FF should be considered when implementing NIPT. To what extent the total number of sequencing reads influences FF estimate has been unexplored. In this study, to test the robustness of SeqFF FF estimation and provide additional recommendations for NIPT analysis quality control, we compared the SeqFF FF estimates with two other methods and investigated how the number of sequencing reads and FF level affects the accuracy and precision of FF estimates. METHODS: WGS data of 516 NIPT samples from a prenatal screening program was obtained. Sample data were randomly downsampled by the read count, and FF was calculated by SeqFF software. Then, the outcome was compared with FF estimates from SNP‐ and chrY‐based methods. FF estimated with different read counts and FF levels were compared with FF at 30 M reads as a reference. RESULTS: SeqFF FF highly correlates with SNP‐ and chrY‐based FF estimates. Raising read count from 2 M to 10 M drastically increased the accuracy of FF estimates. After adding more reads, we saw a further improvement in FF accuracy, reaching a plateau at 20 M reads. Precision of SeqFF FF estimate is independent of FF level in the sample. CONCLUSION: SeqFF is a robust method for FF estimation for both genders and for any FF level in range 2–13%. Accuracy of FF estimates highly depends on the read count. We recommend using no less than 10 M reads to achieve accurate FF estimates for NIPT analysis in clinical settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8123752
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81237522021-05-21 Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT Miceikaitė, Ieva Brasch‐Andersen, Charlotte Fagerberg, Christina Larsen, Martin Jakob Mol Genet Genomic Med Original Articles BACKGROUND: Sufficient fetal fraction (FF) is crucial for quality control of NIPT (Non‐Invasive Prenatal Test) results. Different factors influencing bioinformatic estimation of FF should be considered when implementing NIPT. To what extent the total number of sequencing reads influences FF estimate has been unexplored. In this study, to test the robustness of SeqFF FF estimation and provide additional recommendations for NIPT analysis quality control, we compared the SeqFF FF estimates with two other methods and investigated how the number of sequencing reads and FF level affects the accuracy and precision of FF estimates. METHODS: WGS data of 516 NIPT samples from a prenatal screening program was obtained. Sample data were randomly downsampled by the read count, and FF was calculated by SeqFF software. Then, the outcome was compared with FF estimates from SNP‐ and chrY‐based methods. FF estimated with different read counts and FF levels were compared with FF at 30 M reads as a reference. RESULTS: SeqFF FF highly correlates with SNP‐ and chrY‐based FF estimates. Raising read count from 2 M to 10 M drastically increased the accuracy of FF estimates. After adding more reads, we saw a further improvement in FF accuracy, reaching a plateau at 20 M reads. Precision of SeqFF FF estimate is independent of FF level in the sample. CONCLUSION: SeqFF is a robust method for FF estimation for both genders and for any FF level in range 2–13%. Accuracy of FF estimates highly depends on the read count. We recommend using no less than 10 M reads to achieve accurate FF estimates for NIPT analysis in clinical settings. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8123752/ /pubmed/33687149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1653 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Miceikaitė, Ieva
Brasch‐Andersen, Charlotte
Fagerberg, Christina
Larsen, Martin Jakob
Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title_full Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title_fullStr Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title_full_unstemmed Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title_short Total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in NIPT
title_sort total number of reads affects the accuracy of fetal fraction estimates in nipt
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8123752/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33687149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1653
work_keys_str_mv AT miceikaiteieva totalnumberofreadsaffectstheaccuracyoffetalfractionestimatesinnipt
AT braschandersencharlotte totalnumberofreadsaffectstheaccuracyoffetalfractionestimatesinnipt
AT fagerbergchristina totalnumberofreadsaffectstheaccuracyoffetalfractionestimatesinnipt
AT larsenmartinjakob totalnumberofreadsaffectstheaccuracyoffetalfractionestimatesinnipt