Cargando…

Genotyping of familial Mediterranean fever gene (MEFV)—Single nucleotide polymorphism—Comparison of Nanopore with conventional Sanger sequencing

BACKGROUND: Through continuous innovation and improvement, Nanopore sequencing has become a powerful technology. Because of its fast processing time, low cost, and ability to generate long reads, this sequencing technique would be particularly suitable for clinical diagnostics. However, its raw data...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmidt, Jonas, Berghaus, Sandro, Blessing, Frithjof, Herbeck, Holger, Blessing, Josef, Schierack, Peter, Rödiger, Stefan, Roggenbuck, Dirk, Wenzel, Folker
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8929590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35298548
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265622
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Through continuous innovation and improvement, Nanopore sequencing has become a powerful technology. Because of its fast processing time, low cost, and ability to generate long reads, this sequencing technique would be particularly suitable for clinical diagnostics. However, its raw data accuracy is inferior in contrast to other sequencing technologies. This constraint still results in limited use of Nanopore sequencing in the field of clinical diagnostics and requires further validation and IVD certification. METHODS: We evaluated the performance of latest Nanopore sequencing in combination with a dedicated data-analysis pipeline for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping of the familial Mediterranean fever gene (MEFV) by amplicon sequencing of 47 clinical samples. Mutations in MEFV are associated with Mediterranean fever, a hereditary periodic fever syndrome. Conventional Sanger sequencing, which is commonly applied in clinical genetic diagnostics, was used as a reference method. RESULTS: Nanopore sequencing enabled the sequencing of 10 target regions within MEFV with high read depth (median read depth 7565x) in all samples and identified a total of 435 SNPs in the whole sample collective, of which 29 were unique. Comparison of both sequencing workflows showed a near perfect agreement with no false negative calls. Precision, Recall, and F1-Score of the Nanopore sequencing workflow were > 0.99, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated the great potential of current Nanopore sequencing for application in clinical diagnostics, at least for SNP genotyping by amplicon sequencing. Other more complex applications, especially structural variant identification, require further in-depth clinical validation.