Patent Grant
10934580
The present invention relates to quality assurance methods.
Digital single molecule representation sequencing, often referred to as Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), uses a sequencing by synthesis approach that approximates single molecule DNA sequencing. A feature of NGS methods is that they represent single molecules in the sequences derived. NGS is used for genomic profiling in genomics-based cancer tests.
There are however several aspects of NGS that would benefit from a quality assurance process to establish confidence in allele calls. These aspects include detection of biological and technical bias in allele amplification, detection of poor template or under-representation of template in sequencing, detection of extraneous amplicon contamination, and detection of true low prevalence mutations in the input DNA pool. Quality assurance is a required element of clinical testing and also enables sound research foundations.
Several strategies have been used for counting DNA molecules, such as using stochastic attachment of DNA sequences where the sequence of bases represents a word or code (referred to as barcodes, or molecular barcodes) followed by amplification.
Limitations of the known DNA codeword approaches are that they do not in general address the consequences of a biased set of codeword molecules used for counting, nor the consequences of loss of efficiency in attachment which may be sequence dependent. Additionally, methods are required to incorporate molecular counting into the probabilistic methods for allele detection in NGS sequences (for example those using Bayesian graphical models, such as SNVmix(1) and incorporated into feature based classifiers of sequence variation such as mutationseq(2).
In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method of determining the complexity of a nucleic acid template by:
to determine the complexity of the nucleic acid template.
In an alternative aspect, the present disclosure provides a method of identifying a true sequence variant by:
to identify the true sequence variant.
The true sequence variant may be a low prevalence sequence variant.
The nucleic acid template may be a DNA template.
The codeword-primer molecule or the primer may be further attached to an adapter sequence.
A different codeword may be attached to the first and second primer in the primer pair or the same codeword may be attached to the first and second primer in the primer pair.
The codewords may be attached to the nucleic acid template at random.
The observed codeword entropy may be calculated by a diversity index, such as Shannon entropy, the Simpson index, or any other diversity index.
The codewords may be present in a non-uniform pool.
The codewords may be present in a balanced pool obtained as described herein.
The methods as described herein may be used for detecting true sequence variants, amplification process contamination, sample identity mismatch, or codeword pool imbalance.
In an alternative aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for obtaining a balanced pool of codewords comprising:
The codeword-primer molecule may be further attached to an adapter sequence.
The codeword length may be from about 4 units to about 21 units.
The initial sample size may be at least 10 codewords.
The initial sample may be a random sample or may be subjected to combinatorial and/or thermodynamic constraints.
The initial sample may include all combinations of the codeword sequence or may include a subset of combinations of the codeword sequence.
The method may be performed using larger pools of codewords or codewords of different lengths.
The method may be performed using a single target sequence or using two or more target sequences.
The method may be performed a single time or may be performed two or more times.
The method may include determination of codeword performance as function of subsequence and location.
The primers may include one or more of the sequences set forth in SEQ ID NOS: 1-146.
In some aspects, the present disclosure provides a set of primer pairs, including a first primer and a second primer, where the first primer includes a sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOS: 1-73 and the second primer includes a sequence set forth in any one of SEQ ID NOS: 74-146.
In some embodiments, primers or primer pairs may be provided in kits, together with suitable reagents for storage, transport, delivery or use of the primers or primer pairs, optionally with instructions for use.
This summary of the invention does not necessarily describe all features of the invention.
These and other features of the invention will become more apparent from the following description in which reference is made to the appended drawings wherein:
[i]=6.084 and the dashed curve has the same distribution with values shifted by one (in this case {circumflex over (μ)}[i]=6.943 and
[i]=6.084);
when i˜P(λ);
[i]=85.66, 7 and the dashed curve shows the same distribution with values shifted by one. In this case {circumflex over (μ)}[i]=7.396 and
[i]=85.667;
The present disclosure provides, in part, methods for determining relevant sequence parameters of a balanced performance codeword pool and utilizing the measured parameters for the design of larger balanced pools, ab initio.
Molecular counting pools of nucleic acid codewords (such as DNA or RNA) can be useful to provide estimates of starting template number, quality and detection/avoidance of PCR/sequencing/DNA synthesis errors. The counting of randomly introduced nucleic acid codewords may be analysed using measures of entropy and related information theoretic measures to, for example, determine template number and control for errors.
In one aspect, the present disclosure provides methods for the design and selection of a suitable codeword pool for random attachment to a target sequence or template, such as a nucleic acid template. By “nucleic acid template” or “target sequence” is meant a DNA, RNA, or DNA/RNA hybrid molecule, or complementary molecule. The nucleic acid template or target sequence may be isolated from a specimen including, without limitation, a clinical specimen, a biological research specimen, or a forensic specimen, or may be an artificial sequence, such as a synthetic or recombinant sequence. In some embodiments, a nucleic acid template or target sequence includes, without limitation, a sequence that is of clinical or biological interest, such as somatic mutation hotspots in patient solid tumor or circulating cell-free DNA specimens, or a sequence of forensic interest. In some embodiments, a nucleic acid template or target sequence includes, without limitation, a sequence containing a mutation (a “true sequence variant”). The true sequence variant may include a low prevalence true mutation, such as a mutation having a variant allele frequency (VAF) of less than 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9%, or 10%. In some embodiments, the low prevalence true mutation may have a VAF of less than 5%.
By “complementary” is meant that two nucleic acids, e.g., DNA or RNA, contain a sufficient number of nucleotides which are capable of forming Watson-Crick base pairs to produce a region of double-strandedness between the two nucleic acids. Thus, adenine in one strand of DNA or RNA pairs with thymine in an opposing complementary DNA strand or with uracil in an opposing complementary RNA strand. It will be understood that each nucleotide in a nucleic acid molecule need not form a matched Watson-Crick base pair with a nucleotide in an opposing complementary strand to form a duplex. A nucleic acid template or target sequence can be of any length or nucleotide composition such as any chain of two or more covalently bonded nucleotides, including naturally occurring or non-naturally occurring nucleotides, or nucleotide analogs or derivatives.
A pool of randomly generated codewords can be sufficient for entropy estimation, but a randomly generated set of codewords may contain nucleic acid sequences which perform poorly in PCR sequencing reactions, thus diminishing or biasing the information content used to count template molecules. Accordingly, in some embodiments, measuring entropy differences between amplified starting templates can be useful for optimal performance.
In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for obtaining a balanced pool of codewords.
By “codeword” is meant a linear polymeric molecule having a sequence that can be uniquely determined, such as, without limitation, a DNA, RNA, DNA/RNA hybrid or other macromolecule capable of being amplified. While the methods exemplified herein refer to DNA molecules, it is to be understood that the methods are generally applicable to other molecules that are capable of being amplified.
A codeword can be of length “k.” The length k can be any defined length, such as at least 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 units (e.g., nucleotide bases or amino acid residues) or longer, although increasingly greater lengths may lead to increased costs and loss of efficiency. In some embodiments, the length k can be 10.
By a “balanced pool” of codewords is meant a pool of codewords that allows for balanced thermodynamic design to avoid biased amplification or incorporation of codewords and/or is sufficiently distinct so as to tolerate sequencing errors in the determination of codeword identity. A suitable balanced pool of codewords may be in the order of |W|≈m*(2c−2) codewords (where m is the initial number of templates and c the number of PCR cycles), to allow for estimation of entropy as for example described herein. In general, and without being bound to any particular theory, a balanced pool of codewords provides even performance and may be able to differentiate cases of similar amplification performance.
In some embodiments, an initial sample of a plurality of codewords having a defined length k is provided. The initial sample of codewords can represent all combinations of a sequence or a subset thereof, for example, more than 10, or more than 100 distinct codewords although, it is to be understood that the size of the pool will limit the possible combinations. In some embodiments, the initial sample of codewords may be the same size as that of the pool being tested. The generation of codeword sequence combinations of length k can be done using any suitable technique, such as by incorporation of random bases, specified by the inclusion of a series of Ns (i.e., A, G, C, T or U) in the codeword sequence, or by combinatorial explicit specification of all codeword subsequences of length k, provided to the oligonucleotide synthesiser, or by a combination of thereof. Such techniques are familiar to those skilled in the art. In some embodiments, modified bases incorporating, for example, thio or other base modifications can be used. Without being bound to any particular theory, modified bases may alter the thermodynamic properties of codewords, or may provide a method of retrieving codewords by physical methods, for example incorporation of a biotin moiety, for biotin-streptavidin capture.
Sequence Feature Parameters Relevant to Codeword Performance
In some embodiments, one or more of the following combinatorial and/or thermodynamic constraints can be applied to codewords.
In the methods described herein, W is the set of codewords w defined as linear sequences of nucleotide bases of length k. That is W={w=w1w2 . . . wk|wi∈{A, G, C, T}∀i∈1 . . . , k}.
In physical reality, each barcode DNA sequence or codeword can include multiple identical molecules encoding the sequence. A multiset of codeword molecules in a physical pool of oligonucleotides can therefore be defined as M={w: i|w∈W and i=1, 2, . . . }, where w are the root elements and i=i(w) is the multiplicity of w. That is, the multiplicity of w is the number of instances of w observed in the multiset M. The cardinality of the root set (unique codewords) is |W|=p, whereas the cardinality of the multiset M is Σw∈W i(w).
The design of high quality pools M can be modeled by introducing combinatorial and thermodynamic constraints. High quality codewords do not decrease the number of amplified DNA template sequences. One or more of the following combinatorial constraints can be imposed on the root elements w where H is the Hamming distance of a codeword pair (wi,wj) defined as the number of mismatches in a perfect alignment of two codewords of the same length wi and wj.
C1: codeword mismatches (HD_w). H(wi,wj)≥dw with wi,wj∈W. Enforces a high number of mismatches between all possible pairs of codewords in the pool.
C2: codeword genome mismatches (HD_g). H(wi,wg)≥dg with wi∈W and k-mer wg found in the human genome. To avoid that codewords interact with human k-mers during the PCR process, dg mismatches between each codeword and all human k-mers are introduced in the model.
C3: tagged primer genome mismatches (HD_gp). All k-mer subsequence ws of wip defined as wip joined with primer p shall have H(ws, wip)≥dp with wip∈W. This constraint ensures that codeword boundaries with container primer sequence does not generate inadvertent homology in the genome.
C4: tagged primer pair mismatches (HD_pp). H(wip(i),wjp(J))≥dpp∀wip(i), wjp(j) codeword tagged primers. This constraint ensures that codeword tagged primers do not interact with each other.
C5. GC content. Each w1∈W has GC content c such that 45≤c≤60. The stability and uniformity of the codewords can be modeled by counting specific bases G and C within the same codeword.
One or more of the following thermodynamic constraints can also be imposed to prevent undesired interactions.
T1. Hairpin melting temperature. For each codeword joined with a primer wip, the highest melting temperature from all possible hairpins that can potentially form with the sequence wip must be lower than temp_hairpin. The formation of hairpins will prevent the annealing of the barcode tagged primers to the DNA template during PCR.
T2. Self Dimer free energy. The free energy ΔG(wip) of the secondary structure of every codeword joined to a primer wip must be larger than a threshold ΔGdimer. This constraint forbids the formation of a secondary structure of wip that prevents annealing of the barcode tagged primers to the DNA template.
T3. Heterodimer free energy. The free energy ΔG(wip(i),wjp(j)) of the heterodimer formed by the interaction of two barcode tagged primers wip(i) and wjp(j) must be larger than a threshold ΔGheterodimer for all wip(i) and wjp(j). This constraint forbids the formation of a secondary structure between pairs of barcode tagged primers that prevents annealing to the DNA template.
For a defined codeword length, the size of the root set Wdecreases with the number of constraints. However, the number of required unique codewords increases with the number of PCR cycles and with the mass of DNA target templates. For instance, the absolute number of template molecules in a reaction can be estimated using the mass of a haploid human genome to be approximately 3.4 pg (i.e. 3×10−12 g). A typical targeted PCR sequencing reaction will use between 1 ng and 10 ng of template molecule mass, i.e. between ˜300 and ˜3000 copies per haploid target locus, or twice that number i.e. between ˜600 to ˜6000 copies per diploid locus. However, the methods described herein allow for determining entropy down to single template molecules. For four PCR cycles, between 300*14 and 3000*14 codewords are needed for each end of one target locus, when incorporating the design constraints C1-05 and T1-T3 disclosed above. However, the pools are designed such that each target locus and each end has a different set of codewords. That is, ML1
Therefore, large and diverse set of codewords are useful. Longer and shorter codeword lengths can be used, depending on the desired constraints as indicated in C1-5 and T1-3. However, the constraints imposed to the codewords should be the minimum required to avoid undesirable interactions and at the same time to ensure that the number of unique codewords is large enough to obtain a high codeword entropy in four or more PCR cycles.
Measurement of Codeword Performance Parameters Over a Sub-Sample of Codewords
In some embodiments, an exhaustive method can be used to physically test all codewords of a fixed length and select the codewords that produce optimal PCR amplification in various applications, in order to determine the codeword properties (e.g., one or more of C1-5 and/or T1-3) that have a higher influence on amplification efficiency.
In alternative embodiments, for codewords of, for example, 4 to 21 bases in length, such as 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or 21, a method for reducing the feature selection space can be used. The Lasso (Least Absolute Selection and Shrinkage Operator) method for feature selection is used to determine features that produce similar codeword performance. This method fits a linear model by penalizing the L1 norm (∥β∥1=Σj=1p|βj|) of weights found by the regression. The coefficients are estimated as
{circumflex over (β)}lasso=argminβ(∥y−Xβ∥2+λΣj=1p|βj|)
where yi is the response variable or codeword performance, Xj are the explanatory variables or features, and λ is the weight assigned to each codeword property βj. The tuning parameter λ controls the strength of the penalty. That is, {circumflex over (β)}lasso is the linear regression estimate when λ=0 and {circumflex over (β)}lasso=0 when λ→□. Cross validation can be used to select the best value of λ.
It is to be understood that any other feature selection method, or a classification method such as AdaBoost, can be used to determine the codeword properties that have a larger influence on amplification efficiency.
In one example, the initial sample of codewords representing all possible combinations of sequence or a subset thereof of a defined length k is generated. In some embodiments, the initial sample of codewords includes at least 10 distinct codewords. In alternative embodiments, the initial sample of codewords includes more than 100 distinct codewords. In some embodiments, if the full set of codewords of length k, is measured, this can be regarded as a subset of codewords length k+1, k+2, etc. In some embodiments, where k is 10, all possible sequence combinations of codewords can be generated. In general, the initial sample of codewords should be proportionate to the length k, in order to obtain a representative set of codewords.
Each distinct codeword in the initial sample of codewords may be attached to the 5′ end of a single target sequence primer or primer pair, to form a codeword-primer molecule. By “primer pair” is meant two optimally designed oligonucleotide sequences (a “first primer” and a “second primer”) such as forward and reverse primers, which can serve to prime the polymerase chain reaction, where the first primer and the second primer anneal to complementary sequences on either strand of the target sequence. A primer in a primer pair can be of any suitable length, such as at least 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 nucleotide bases or longer, although increasingly greater lengths may lead to increased costs, errors in synthesis, or loss of efficiency. In some embodiments, a primer in a primer pair can be 15 nucleotide bases. In some embodiments, the same codeword can be attached to the first primer and the second primer in a primer pair. In alternate embodiments, different codewords can be attached to the first primer and the second primer in a primer pair. In some embodiments, a codeword can be attached to only one primer of a primer pair. In alternate embodiments, a codeword can be attached to both primers of a primer pair.
A codeword can be attached to a primer using any suitable technique, such as oligonucleotide synthesis or ligation or other suitable method. For example, the initial sample of all possible codewords of length k, is synthesized at the 5′ end of a single target sequence primer (such as locus primer pairs as disclosed in the CG001v2 panel sequence described herein, see Table 15). In some embodiments, an adapter sequence, for library construction of the PCR products, can be added as part of the synthesis, 5′ to the codeword, as outlined in for example
A target sequence, including a sequence complementary to the sequence of each of the target sequence primer pairs, can be amplified using the codeword-primer molecule pairs by any suitable amplification reaction, for example, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or any suitable linear amplification technique using any polymerase that can amplify chains of nucleic acids, applied sequentially, such as without limitation T4 polymerase, phi29 polymerase, or reverse transcriptases (in the case of RNA) to provide an amplification reaction product including the codeword sequence(s).
The sequence of the amplification reaction product may be obtained using any suitable techniques including, without limitation, next-generation DNA sequencing chemistries utilizing sequencing-by-synthesis on glass flow cells, pyrosequencing on beads, or proton semiconductor technology, coupled with nucleotide base readouts as optical signals or ion pH changes. Additional techniques undergoing adoption include true single-molecule real-time sequencing utilizing nanowells and nanopores.
In some embodiments, the amplification performance of the codewords can be determined as follows. The PCR target reaction may be performed using, for example, the process described for the CG001v2 assay as described herein, however the reaction may be stopped after a predetermined number of amplification cycles (a defined number of cycles), to determine the rate of increase in abundance of codewords. Thus, samples of the codeword-target PCR reaction may be taken at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 or greater cycles, or at any combination of a subset of these cycles (an intermediate number of cycles). In some embodiments, additional amplification cycles may be performed using nested PCR techniques. In some embodiments, the limit c* may be determined by the number of cycles of a PCR reaction although the expected number of codewords required for c* cycles should be at most the size of the codeword pool.
The PCR reaction at the end of each cycle, at the end of the defined number of cycles, or at an intermediate number of cycles, may then be indexed and sequenced on any next-generation sequencing (NGS) device or any device capable of providing a digital count of nucleic acid template sequences, for example as described in the CG001v2 assay or by any familiar PCR-NGS sequencing method known to a person skilled in the art.
The abundance of codewords present in the amplification reaction product at the end of each cycle may then be determined by, for example, DNA sequence alignment and counting of codeword instances, for example, as in the CG001v2 assay outline (
The performance of codeword sequences may then be calculated by (i) the relationship between the observed and expected codeword abundance over 1 or more iterations of this method and/or (ii) the rate of increase in abundance over increasing PCR cycles. A different approach may be to (iii) analyze the observed distribution of codeword frequencies.
For (i), the z-score value of the observed entropy may be computed using the parameters of the expected entropy distribution under the assumption that it follows a Normal distribution, to give the probability of the observed entropy under the expected entropy distribution. Other statistical approaches for comparing the observed entropy to the expected entropy distribution may be used, as will be familiar to a person skilled in the art.
The codeword amplification coefficient for (ii) may be calculated directly, or by linear modeling where, for example, the abundance of a given word Yw is modeled as function of β0+β1*X where X is the number of PCR cycles and the estimate of β1 the coefficient of amplification. The value of β0 is related to the cycle in which codeword w was observed for the first time. Sequence amplification in PCR is exponential but codeword amplification is linear (
Accordingly, in a perfect PCR reaction, Yw=β0+X as codewords are expected to increase by one per PCR cycle.
For (iii), the observed codeword frequency distribution may be used to identify codewords with poor amplification performance or codewords that are preferentially amplified. The observed frequency values should be within a range [a, b] where the number of codewords with frequency i is expected to be equal or higher than the number of codewords with frequency j for a≤i<j≤b since codeword amplification is linear and more codewords are introduced in later cycles of the PCR reaction. An example of over-amplification is when there are no codewords with frequencies in the range [k, b−1] where a<k<b but a codeword is observed with frequency b much higher than the rest of the observed frequencies. That is, k«b. In this approach, only a small sample of the entire population of reads that contain a given codeword can be observed, since only a portion of the billions of amplified reads are sequenced in an assay.
Iterative Procedure to Refine Performance Measures
In the above example, favourable and unfavorable codeword properties are determined for codewords of a defined length. In some embodiments, codewords of shorter or longer lengths (e.g., one, two, three, four or more consecutive codeword lengths) may be generated to provide additional measures of performance, and the amplification and analysis steps may be repeated using the codewords of different lengths.
In some embodiments, the amplification and analysis steps may be performed on a single target locus. In alternative embodiments, the amplification and analysis steps may be performed on 2 or more loci to assess the independence of target locus specific sequences, from the performance of codeword-primer molecules attached to individual target locus sequences.
In some embodiments, the entire process (generation of codewords, amplification and analysis) may be conducted once for each codeword length and/or target locus. In alternative embodiments, the entire process (generation of codewords, amplification and analysis) may be repeated two or more times for each codeword length and/or target locus. In some embodiments, the variance between repeated measurements may be determined and repeated measurement discontinued when the variance is below a desired value such as 1%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, etc. It is to be understood that a skilled person would readily recognize the point at which measurements are stabilizing around any particular value and discontinue further repeats after that point.
Measurement of Codeword Performance as a Function of Sequence Composition
Having measured the performance of codewords of defined length, at a defined target locus, the sequence parameters associated with performance may be determined as follows.
In some embodiments, codeword performance may be categorised as a function of subsequence composition and location. Information relating to favourable and unfavourable subsequence composition and location may be used to design longer codewords that may be more likely to exhibit good PCR amplification.
In some embodiments, subsequences in codewords that influence PCR amplification may be detected as follows.
Let Wk be the set of codewords of length k. That is, Wk={w=w1w2 . . . wk|wi∈{A,G,C,T}∀i∈1 . . . , k} where the size of Wk is |Wk|=4k. The performance yj of each codeword or a subset of codewords wj∈Wk is measured in PCR reactions. A matrix is then generated with subsequence composition in the rows and subsequence location in the columns. The elements of the matrix are the median performance of codewords with specific subsequence composition and location. For instance, in matrix Y shown in
Subsequences in the matrix have a fixed length, and therefore one matrix is generated for every possible subsequence length l=2 . . . k−1. However, not all the matrices provide the same amount of information. For instance, the number of subsequences of a given length decreases with the length of the subsequence, and therefore long subsequences provide less information. Furthermore, for long codewords, subsequences of length two might not have an impact on PCR amplification. A suitable subsequence length is therefore 25% of the codeword length, that is the nearest integer to l=0.25*k.
For a fixed k, a heatmap can be generated from matrix Y to infer subsequences with poor and good performance. Furthermore, the elements of Y can also be clustered to identify subsequence compositions and locations that produce similar amplification performances.
This method is exemplified using experimental data of several samples on a commercial Normal Female DNA template with random 8-mers synthesized into both forward and reverse primers of one of the target amplicons in the cancer hotspot multiplex PCR assay described herein. Codeword primers were used both as part of a primers mix and alone, as a singleplex PCR. The input DNA was varied from m=500, 1000, 5000, 10000, 50000, and 100000 haploid genomes. Separate multiplex PCR reactions were run for 15 and 25 cycles. All experiments were performed using an Illumina Miseq platform. Table 2 shows the sorted frequencies of all possible 2-mers from codewords that are observed in every sample. The most favourable 2-mers are ‘AA’ whereas the least favourable are the ones with high GC content such as ‘GG’ or ‘CG’.
Sequence and thermodynamic properties can be combined in the Lasso method to determine the most influential sequence and thermodynamic properties. This method is exemplified on a commercial Normal Female DNA template with 8-mers synthesized into both forward and reverse primers of one of the target loci of our cancer hotspot multiplex PCR assay described herein. We used data from several experiments with different PCR cycles (c=15, 10, 25, and 30) and amounts of input (m=7,575, 0, 500, 1K, 5K, 10K, 100K). All experiments were performed using an Illumina Miseq platform. The sequence properties considered are subsequence location and composition where subsequences are of length 3. The GC content is included as the thermodynamic property. A 3-fold cross validation was used to determine the optimal value for the tuning parameter A. The results for the Lasso method using this tuning parameter are listed in the Table 3. This table suggests that GC content has a higher influence on codeword performance than subsequence location and composition of 3-mers.
Randomized Iterative Improvement to Search Sequence Space for Suitable Codewords Based on Design Criteria
The measured or calculated parameters can be used with design constraints to design a larger optimal performance pool of DNA codewords.
In some embodiments, stochastic local search algorithms (SLS) can be used. For example, the SLS algorithm described by Tulpan et al.(10) performs a local search in a space of codeword sets of fixed size which violate the given constraints. The constraints may include the codeword properties determined as described herein as well as constraints that involve interactions with other codewords in the pool, such as codeword mismatches (C1). The search is initialized with a randomly selected set of DNA strands. Then, repeatedly a conflict, that is, a pair of codewords that violates a constraint, is selected and resolved by modifying one of the respective codewords, as follows.
Input Parameters
The list of constraint parameters C, for example:
n pool size
k word length
dw Hamming distance between word pairs in the pool
ΔGheterodimer free energy threshold for heterodimer formation
c GC content
The parameters of the algorithm are:
max_tries maximum number of times the pool is initialized
max_steps maximum number of iterations
nhood_size neighbourhood size
Initialization
An initial set of words S is randomly selected such that the GC content constraints are satisfied. A GC content of [40%, 60%] can be used to avoid codewords with high and low amplification rate. In order to improve the performance of the algorithm, the search is performed on the space of codewords that satisfy the GC content constraints. Note that the total number of codewords of length k with GC content c, where 40%<c<60% is 2k*Σj=[k*0.40] . . . [k*0.6] C(k,j) where C are the combinations of j positions in a codeword of length k. However, the initial set typically contains a smaller set n of codewords that satisfy the GC content constraints. The set size remains constant throughout the algorithm, and in each iteration, an attempt is made to increase the number of codewords in the set that satisfy the constraints.
Neighbourhood
In each iteration, a pair of words w1, w2∈S that violates a constraint is selected uniformly at random. Then a neighbourhood Mof w1 and w2 is built, that is, M=N(w1)UN(w2) where N is a hybrid randomised neighbourhood composed by a one-mutation neighbourhood and a random neighbourhood.
The one-mutation neighbourhood of a given codeword w consists of all codewords that can be obtained from w by modifying one base. For a given pair of codewords w1 and w2 of length k, there are 2*k one-mutation neighbours that satisfy the GC content constraints.
The random neighbourhood is built by selecting a fixed number of random codewords with length k and GC content c. Note that the number of random codewords generated is nhood_size−2*k. Random neighbourhoods help escape from a local minimum in the search space.
Selection Criteria
A word w′ in the neighbourhood M=N(w1)UN(w2) is selected such that the number of constraint violations in the pool Ŝ is maximally reduced. The pool S^ is formed by replacing w1 by w′ if w′∈N(w1) in the pool S, or by replacing w2 by w′ if w′∈N(w2). Note that the pools S and Ŝ differ in one word.
Stop Criteria
In each iteration of the algorithm, the pool S is modified by replacing one word. This process is performed a maximum of max_steps times. If the solution is not found after max_steps iterations, the pool S is initialized randomly and the process is repeated. The pool S is initialized a maximum of max_tries. The SLS stops when all the words in the pool S satisfy the constraints or when a maximum of max_tries are performed.
The pseudocode for the algorithm of
Note that in each iteration, the best pool Sbest found is stored, that is, the pool with the least number of violated constraints. The SLS returns Sbest. Also, note that the algorithm has two for loops. In the outer for loop, the pool is initialized and therefore the implementation of the code can be parallelized with max_tries independent runs of the SLS.
It is to be understood that a modified version of the SLS described herein, or another optimization method, can be used to find a pool that satisfy a list of constraints.
Analysis of Template Diversity Through Codeword Entropy
In some aspects, the present disclosure provides methods for using information theoretic measurements of codeword entropy in amplified sequences derived from a pool of template molecules, in quality control, mutation calling and other applications to NGS sequencing.
In some embodiments, codewords are attached (for example ligated or synthesized with target primer sequences, such as those described herein for the primer sequences of CG001.v2). Attachment of codewords to primers may, in general, bypass the inefficiency and unpredictability of ligation to template molecules, which is especially problematic for DNA templates retrieved from archival specimens, such as formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue samples that are a routine method of patient tissue diagnosis. In alternative embodiments, the codewords may be attached to target molecules. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the methods described herein can be applied to template-codeword attached templates.
Since a pair-end sequencing approach is used in the NGS process, two different primers are priming in an NGS sequencing reaction, the molecular barcode, and the primer; see
In some embodiments, a single codeword or molecular barcode is attached to one of the two primers in a primer pair. In alternative embodiments, the same or different codewords or molecular barcodes are used in a primer pair.
In alternative embodiments, codeword or molecular barcodes with or without attached adapter sequences may be ligated directly to a nucleic acid template molecule, such as a DNA template molecule, to form a codeword-template molecule, and the subsequent chimeric temple-codeword[-adapter] molecules may be amplified using the common primer. Without being bound to any particular theory, this approach may be useful for sequencing of pools of DNA fragments from a whole genome, or obtained from enrichment capture hybridisation of genomic DNA fragments. A person skilled in the art will be able to apply the methods of entropy disclosed herein in this situation.
In general, analysis of template diversity through codeword entropy may be performed by:
Estimating Expected Entropy in DNA Codewords During PCR Sequencing, with a Performance Idealised Codeword Pool
Expected measures of entropy under different performance characteristics of codewords may be determined as follows. The expected measures may be used in subsequent steps for determining actual performance and for mutation calling.
In some embodiments, a set of high diversity pool of codewords M are generated and attached to target primers by for example synthesis or ligation. In alternative embodiments, DNA codewords are attached stochastically to template molecules by for example ligation. In some embodiments, the observed codeword diversity may be determined using Shannon entropy. It is however to be understood that any other suitable diversity metric, such as the Simpson index, may be used.
A PCR reaction starts with an initial number of template molecules m that will interact with the pool of codewords annotated primers. The diversity of a given codeword set observed in the amplified product of a PCR process with c cycles (Ac) is calculated using the Shannon entropy H defined as
H(Ac)=−Σw
The entropy of codewords observed in a given PCR cycle thus depends on several factors such as the pool size |M|, the multiplicity i(wj) of each codeword wj in the pool Mand the initial number of template molecules m.
The codeword entropy of a given PCR cycle can be estimated as follows. First the number of amplified sequences and the minimum number of unique codewords required in each PCR cycle is estimated. Two different codeword pools are generated, one for the forward primer MF and a different one for the reverse primer MR. Therefore, two sets of codewords associated to the amplified product are observed at the end of a given PCR cycle: one for the forward primer and a second one for the reverse primer. For instance,
The number of amplified sequences and the number of unique codewords can be inferred in general. There are three types of sequences that can appear in a given PCR cycle: (1) the original DNA template, (2) primer extensions from original templates that have one codeword in one end, and (3) primer extension products from primer extension products that have two codewords, one in each end. Table 5 contains the number of sequences of each type observed in a given PCR cycle. It also contains the general formula to obtain the number of sequences observed of each type in any given PCR cycle c.
To obtain the number of unique codewords per PCR cycle, note that each primer extension products from original DNA template contain one codeword w1. However when amplified, the product will contain codeword w1 and a new codeword in the other end w2. Similarly, primer extension products from primer extension products contain two codewords w1 and w2. These sequences will be amplified in one direction and the new product will contain one new codeword w3. Therefore, each time a sequence is amplified a new codeword is introduced (
Since each sequence type produces one new codeword in the next cycle, the total number of unique codewords per cycle c is equal to 2c−2 (Table 6).
The frequency fi,c of a given codeword w1 in cycle c can also be computed in a perfect PCR process as fj,c=fi,c-1+1 with fi,c
Under ideal circumstances, each codeword in the pool is uniformly distributed with multiplicity one, that is i(wj)=i˜Uniform(1), where Uniform refers to the Uniform statistical distribution. However, in practice the observed multiplicity distribution can differ from the uniform due to errors in oligonucleotide synthesis, inefficiency of oligonucleotide synthesis of some sequences due to thermodynamic constraints intrinsic to the sequence, inefficient PCR amplification and sequencing of the codeword due to similar issues. In fact any coding method may suffer from non-Uniform characteristics. The impact of non-Uniform distributions of codes may be handled as follows, providing an estimation of the entropy characteristics during PCR sequencing.
The first step is to identify the empirical distribution of codeword multiplicity. The ideal distribution is Uniform, however other distributions can be observed in practice such as a Poisson distribution, used to model the number of events observed in a period of time. The Negative Binomial distribution can also be observed when the mean and the variance of the distribution differ. As a first step, exploratory analysis and Q-Q plots can be used to compare the empirical distribution with known distributions. Then maximum likelihood estimation can be used to obtain the probability of the observed codeword multiplicity distribution given the chosen probability distribution model. Furthermore, a goodness of fit test can also be used to indicate whether or not it is reasonable to assume that a random sample comes from a specific distribution.
The next step is to determine the expected codeword entropy distribution given a specific codeword multiplicity distribution that has been characterized. The codewords observed in a given PCR cycle can be modeled by statistical sampling with replacement in the codeword pool |M|, where the sample size depends on the number of amplified sequences. Sampling with replacement is used since the root elements wj can have a multiplicity greater than one. Furthermore, errors during the PCR reaction can affect the entropy of codewords, for instance, primers can potentially dissociate and re-prime.
The following sections illustrate the behaviour of codeword entropy in the 4th PCR cycle when different multiplicity codeword distributions are present. In every case, the entropy distribution was obtained by generating 1000 independent samples with replacement of a fixed pool with a determined multiplicity distribution of root elements. The behaviour of codeword entropy between in m=1 template (number of templates defined as m) and multiples of m, to exemplify how the entropy methods disclosed may distinguish errors incorporated at late cycles in the PCR sequencing process, or randomly distributed single template variations, from true alleles is shown as follows.
(i) Uniform Multiplicity Distribution
A perfect PCR reaction with four cycles has fourteen different codewords, in the preferred embodiment (see
In ideal circumstances, the multiplicity of codewords is uniformly distributed. However, variations in the multiplicity can occur due to errors in oligonucleotide synthesis. The entropy methods described herein can however still be used to distinguish errors incorporated at late PCR cycles when there is an unbalanced representation of codewords in the pool.
(ii) Poisson Multiplicity Distribution
Variation in the codeword multiplicity can be modeled using a Poisson distribution with parameter λ, that is i˜P(λ). The Poisson distribution is used to model the number of events observed in a period of time. In this case the events are the codewords wj generated during oligonucleotide synthesis. If i˜P(λ), not all codewords have the same multiplicity, however the mean and variance is equal to λ. The density function of a Poisson distribution is defined as
where μ[i]=λ=σ2[i] with k∈{0, 1, . . . }.
To model this case, a Poisson sample was generated and the values were shifted by one since the codeword multiplicity i should be greater than zero.
The quality of the PCR process is better assessed when the number of cycles is larger than 1. The reason is that if the templates are not well amplified at the end of c PCR cycles, the codeword entropy of the amplified product can be identified as the expected entropy associated with a lower PCR cycle c′ where c′<c.
Estimating Expected Entropy in DNA Codewords During PCR Sequencing, with a Non-Uniform Performance Codeword Pool.
(iii) Negative Binomial Multiplicity Distribution
The Poisson distribution assumes that the mean and the variance of a distribution are the same. However, over dispersion can be observed in practice when the variance in the multiplicity is greater than the mean. This case can be modeled with the Negative Binomial distribution, that is, i˜NB (r; p). The distribution models the probability of the number of successes in a sequence of independent Bernoulli trials before a specified number of failures r occurs. The probability of success of each Bernoulli trial is p. The density function is defined as P(i=k)=C(k+r−1, k)pk (1−p)r with k=0, 1, 2, . . . where C are the combinations of k success in k+r−1 Bernoulli trials. The mean and the variance are μ[i]=pr/(1−p) and σ2[i]=pr/(1−p)2 respectively.
To model this case, a Negative Binomial sample was generated and the values are shifted by one since the codeword multiplicity ishould be greater than zero.
To investigate the effect that the variance has in the entropy, several samples were generated with different parameters of a Negative Binomial distribution. Table 7 contains the mean and variance of each generated sample. The parameters p and r were varied in such a way that the sample mean {circumflex over (μ)} was fixed. For instance, when {circumflex over (μ)}=1, the values of the variance () range from 2.08 to 10.3. Note that as the probability of success p increases, the sample variance
decreases. Furthermore, for a fixed p, the sample variance increases as the sample mean {circumflex over (μ)} increases.
In order to model the 4th PCR cycle and an initial number of 3,000 DNA templates, the size of each sample was fixed to 42,000.
(iv) Uniform Multiplicity Distribution with Outliers
Another scenario that can occur in practice is where most of the codewords have the same multiplicity except few of them with higher or lower number of occurrences. In this case, the multiplicity is modeled as a uniform distribution with some outliers. In a PCR process with four cycles and m initial template copies, the pool size is computed as |M|=m*Σj=114 i(wj) with probability of sampling each codeword is P(wk)=i(wk)/(m*Σj=114 i(wj)).
In order to simulate this case, a uniform distribution with parameter one was generated with different number of outliers and a random multiplicity that ranges between five and seven.
(v) Uniform Multiplicity Distribution and Different Number of PCR Cycles
In practice not all sequences are amplified as expected. For instance, some sequences are amplified only in the early cycles of the PCR process. To model this situation, we compared the codeword entropy of sequences that are amplified in different PCR cycles when the multiplicity is uniformly distributed. The parameters needed to simulate each case are the population size, the sample size and the probability of sampling a codeword in different PCR cycles. These parameters are included in Table 8.
Impact of Codeword Incorporation in Amplicon Performance
Amplicon performance was also tested using commercial Normal Female DNA template with 10-mers synthesized into both forward and reverse primers of all 73-target loci of our cancer hotspot multiplex PCR assay. We used 25 PCR cycles and different amounts of input DNA (m). The number of reads per amplicon from this experiment when m=5,000 and 10,000 was compared with four different experiments with commercial Normal Female DNA template, and primers without codewords. These experiments were performed using an Illumina Miseq platform. In these four experiments we used 30 PCR cycles and m=7,575 haploid genomes.
Relation of Starting Templates and Entropy
The entropy is expected to increase as a function of the initial number of templates. This relation is exemplified on a commercial Normal Female DNA (Coriell Biorepository) template with random 8-mers and 10-mers synthesized into both forward and reverse primers of one of the target amplicons in our custom CG001 cancer hotspot multiplex PCR assay. A MiSeq platform was used to sample the reads. The experimental conditions considered for 8-mers are 20 PCR cycles and amount of input DNA of m=10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, 10000, 50000, 100000. The conditions considered for 10-mers are 25 PCR cycles and m=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000,4000, 5000, 10000, 25000.
The codeword entropy per amplicon was then analyzed as a function of input DNA.
DNA Barcode Applications for Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance in diagnostic DNA sequencing is desirable to prevent erroneous information being provided for treatment and management of patients. In the NGS methods, it is highly desirable to incorporate methods which allow for different aspects of quality assurance, which range from detection of process contamination, sample identity, to precise definitions of analytical validity of the results. DNA codewords are used to assess different aspects of the amplified product in the targeted sequencing exemplification introduced in the background, for each of these purposes, as follows.
(1) Detection of Sample or Process Contamination
Different sets of known codeword pools with non-overlapping membership, generated for example as described herein, are selected for use on different days or with different processing batches of samples, for example by incorporation into the primer sequences of CG001v2, but any other primers sequences targeting a region of the genome can also be used. Thus, each experiment has a different codeword set in use at any time. In some embodiments, codewords are attached to primers targeting known polymorphic single nucleotide variants in the human genome. A suitably large number of individual germline polymorphisms is used, to allow for distinguishing different human individuals by virtue of the combination of polymorphic variants detected. The latter may comprise single base variants, deletions or variations in repeat sequences. The number of polymorphisms chosen can be determined as a function of the frequency of a given polymorphism in the population and the number of loci, so as to reduce the likelihood of chance double occurrence to less than an acceptable threshold. An acceptable threshold may be 1/1000000, but anywhere between 1/1000 and 1/1000000 or less than 1/10000000 can also be used. A suitable number of single base polymorphisms may be 16, but 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 or larger numbers may be used. The dual use of germline polymorphisms and DNA barcodes allows for unique identification of an individual DNA template during multiple sequencing and informatic laboratory steps and the presence of a defined set of codewords allows for the detection of plate to plate, or assay to assay or day to day cross contamination in laboratory workflows.
(2) Codeword Diversity to Detect Inadequate Template Diversity in PCR
The actual performance of codeword entropy distributions may be obtained, for example as described herein, from several serial dilution experiments in an independent DNA template control, by diluting templates from about 3000 copies, in steps down to a single copy and establishing the measured entropy at different target loci at the different dilutions of known template. In some embodiments, as few as 4 molecules may be used. In alternative embodiments, greater than 3000 copies may be used. In alternative embodiments, between 4 to 3000 copies, or any number in between, such as 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, etc. may be used. The serial dilutions give different concentrations of initial template molecules. A person skilled in the art would understand how to conduct a serial dilution experiment to obtain a relationship between starting templates as an input and entropy, a measured property of the method, as an output, in a manner similar to any assay where a defined input is used for standardizing assay performance over a range of measurements. Higher codeword entropies are expected for higher concentrations of initial template molecules. This is exemplified in
When the amplified product is lower than expected, the observed entropy is lower than the expected entropy distribution, see
and is a measure of the standard deviations away from the mean. In a Z-score test, the null hypothesis is defined as H0: x=μ. The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than the significance level α. Very high or very low (negative) Z scores, associated with very small p-values, are found in the tails of the normal distribution. This indicates that it is very unlikely that the observed value x belong to the expected distribution N(μ, σ2).
Methods other than the Z-score method can also be applied. For instance, it is possible to determine the quantile of the observed entropy under the assumption that it belongs to the expected entropy distribution. If the observed entropy is an outlier then this suggests an artifact in the PCR process and allows for a rejection of a sample during sequencing/quality control.
Detection of True Mutations in Contrast with PCR/Sequencing Errors or Randomly Distributed Individual Base Variations in Template Molecules
One or more of the methods as described herein have application in for example cancer diagnosis, where subpopulations of malignant cells may contain a variant not present in the majority (referred to as clones). Additional applications in the field of infectious agent sequencing, where rare bacterial or viral genomes are to be detected among a population. One or more of the methods as described herein may generally be used in any situation where a rare DNA variant (a “low prevalence true mutation”) is being analysed/detected by NGS sequencing among a population background. It is to be understood that the methods described herein find use in any sequences having any variant allele prevalence and it is not required that the variant be a rare variant.
The methods work under the assumption that the distribution of the codeword entropy of variant alleles and the background is different. This is exemplified by comparing the codeword entropy of alleles associated with SNPs and alleles with low frequencies due to sequencing errors or artifacts. The SNPs found in Normal Female samples are listed in Table 9. The artifact positions (positions with sequencing errors) considered for this analysis are in the neighborhood regions, [SNP-5, SNP−3] and [SNP+3, SNP+5], of SNPs listed in Table 10. The codeword entropy was calculated on the minor SNP allele and on all low prevalence alleles in the artifact class, see
Table 9 shows the SNPs identified in each serial dilution sample with Normal Female. The SNPs and the allele SNPs were verified over several experiments with commercial Normal Female template on the cancer hotspot multiplex PCR assay, described herein, with the following experimental conditions: 30 PCR cycles, m=7575, and primers without codewords. The minor allele, and the % VAF reported in this table correspond to the experiment with codewords, 25 PCR cycles and different number of initial temples.
Table 10 shows that positions considered for the artifact class are the neighborhood regions [SNP−5, SNP−3] and [SNP+3, SNP+5] of SNP positions listed in this table.
True low prevalence variants can be distinguished from sequencing errors by using supervised or unsupervised classification methods. Supervised classification methods are known to those of skill in the art and include, without limitations, methods that include the use of a training set.
The classes considered are (1) true mutations and (2) sequencing and/or polymerase errors labeled as artifacts. The performance of the classification methods depends on the selected features. We demonstrate the performance of several supervised methods using two features for classifying variants: (1) the codeword entropy of amplified reads with low prevalence variants and (2) the coverage defined as the number of amplified reads in the position of the variant. The scipy library from python was used to run these algorithms with the default parameters, unless specified.
where y∈{artifact, mutation}.
These methods were tested using mixtures of Normal Female genomic DNA and Horizon QMRS multiplex reference DNA (prepped in-house from FFPE scrolls), with random 10-mers synthesized into both forward and reverse primers of all 73 CG001 target loci. PCR reactions were run for 25 cycles. The combined input DNA for each reaction was kept at 5000 haploid copies, with two mixtures: (1) 100% QMRS and (2) 10% QMRS+90% Normal Female.
Table 11 shows the list of mutations considered in the true mutation class (the list of mutations found in QMRS combined with Normal Female (NF)).
The observed percentage variant allele frequency (VAF) for the true mutation class varies between 0.86% and 25.62%. The data for the artifact class was obtained from this experiment in all low prevalence alleles at several positions different to the true mutation positions. The positions considered are in the neighborhood regions, [SNP−10, SNP−5] and [SNP+5, SNP+10] of SNPs listed in Table 10 and the exon regions listed in Table 12. Artifact positions [SNP−5, SNP−3] and [SNP+3, SNP+5] from serial dilutions of Normal Female samples were also included.
The predicted class of the true mutations in the testing set is shown in Table 13. The mutation data in the testing set of
Table 14 indicates that the non-probabilistic methods SVM and Nearest Neighbors, and the Logistic Regression probabilistic method exhibited the highest performance in this study. The mean of the Matthews correlation coefficient over 20 stratified cross validation runs is shown as the performance metric. Accordingly, in some embodiments, supervised classification methods for use in the methods described herein include methods exhibiting a Matthews correlation coefficient of at least 0.7. Such methods include, without limitation, SVM, Nearest Neighbors, and the Logistic Regression probabilistic methods.
Incorporation of Entropy Based Measurements of Template Complexity and Nucleotide Variation in NGS Sequencing
The process outlined in
The procedure in
Sample Workflow for Sequencing of Patient Tumour Tissues with an NGS sequencing Panel.
The requesting physician will access a secure external web portal to submit the patient sample requisition form. The sample will then be accessioned into the company's laboratory information management system (LIMS) upon receipt and a hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slide will be assessed for tumour cellularity of the patient's formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. If the patient sample does not have sufficient tumour content a new sample will be requested. A new sample will also need to be requested if the sample does not yield greater than 100 ng of DNA after extraction. The sample will also need to meet all the QC requirements after library construction and data analysis. Once all QC metrics have been passed a patient report will be generated and disseminated back to the requesting health care provider.
DNA Extraction
DNA was extracted from 4×10 micron sections of formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen). The extraction protocol was modified so that deparaffinization consisted of heating the sample to 90° C. in mineral oil. Briefly, 300 ul of molecular grade mineral oil was added to the FFPE scrolls and heated at 90° C. for 20 minutes. The sample was then treated exactly as per Qiagen's instructions after the addition of ATL buffer and Proteinase K. To assist in separating the aqueous layer from the melted paraffin, samples were cooled on ice for 4 minutes just prior to liquid transfer to the spin column. Eluted DNA was quantitated using the Qubit Fluorometer (Invitrogen by Life Technologies).
Library Construction
50 ng of FFPE DNA was used for amplicon generation using the Qiagen Multiplex PCR kit. The amplicons were generated in two pools; Pool A and Pool B for a total of 73 amplicons (Primers listed in Table 15) covering over 90 hotspots and 7 exons (Table 16).
Locus specific primers included Nextera XT (Illumina) common sequences so that after PCR Ampure XP bead cleanup library construction was performed using the Nextera XT barcode kit. The indexed adapters were ligated to the amplified sequences through 8 cycles of PCR. After library construction samples were again purified using the AMPure XP Beads, quantitated with Qubit and analyzed using the Agilent Bioanalyzer. Samples were pooled and diluted to 12.5 pM prior to sequencing on the MiSeq (IIlumina) using the 300 cycle v2 kit for paired end 150 bp reads. The pooling strategy was such that 20 patients and a positive and negative control were included for each run.
Primer Panel CG001.2 For Targeted Amplification of Somatic Aberrations in Cancer
A targeted oligonucleotide DNA sequence primer panel CG001.v2, (Table 15), consisting of 73 PCR primer pairs was designed using primer3(3) to amplify target genomic regions in the human genome (hg19). The genomic regions used for primer design encompass genomic regions 200 bp upstream and downstream of the targeted regions. Selection of the primer pairs used in the panel involved the design of primer groups of a minimum of 45 primer pairs for each target region using the following primer3 settings; minimum size:18, optimal size:20, maximum size:27, product size range:100-249, minimum temp:57, optimal temp: 60, maximum temp:63. Primers pairs meeting any of the following criteria were excluded from the design groups: greater than three consecutive guanine's in either the forward or reverse primer sequences, primers aligning to genomic target regions having snps with 1000 genome allele prevalence >0.005, primer pairs amplifying off target genomic regions determined using NCBI Blast(4).
Primer pairs in each of the primer groups were sequentially tested for compatibility with existing primer pairs in one of two pools. Each primer pair was tested for primer dimerization with existing primer pairs defined as an alignment of greater than four bases with >80% matching bases. Once a compatible primer pair was identified, the primer pair was added to the pool and primer pair testing for the primer group was terminated. Testing of the primer pairs in the next primer group would then commence. The final primer panel created using this process consisted of one selected compatible primer pair from each of the primer groups split over two pools. The PCR amplification performance of each primer pair in each panel was assessed and primer pairs that failed to amplify genomic sequence were redesigned using primer3 and tested for compatibility with the existing pools.
Informatic Analysis of Sequences from Performing CG001.v2
Paired reads from target amplicons generated by the Illumina MiSeq were aligned to the reference genome hg19 using bwa with the BWA-mem algorithm(5). Further processing and filtering of aligned reads was performed using SAMtools(6) and bamUtils(7). Only aligned reads meeting the following criteria were used in further analysis; on target with the expected read length, reads with less than 5 mismatches and reads with soft clipping of less than 7 bp. The filtered alignments were then used for SNVs and indel identification using MutationSeq(2) and strelka(8) tools respectively. MutationSeq uses a feature-based classifier to assess the probability of a somatic mutation at any given position and requires sequencing data from matched tumour-normal pairs. Strelka is based on a Bayesian approach and requires tumour-normal pairs as well. Since matched normal samples are not available, variant detection was performed using the cell line derived from normal B-lymphocytes of a healthy female individual as a normal reference (NA01953, Coriell Biorepositories). Detection of SNVs with high confidence required a target minimum depth of 1000× and MutationSeq probability score of >=0.9. Indel detection required a minimum target depth of 1000× and a Quality Score of at least 30. The Quantitative Multiplex DNA Reference Standard (Horizon Diagnostics) was used as a positive control for detection of SNVs and indels at a wide range of allelic frequencies (1-33.5%). The Pearson's correlation of predicted vs reported allelic frequencies for the positive control of at least 0.9 served as an indication of a successful variant detection. The effect of the detected high confidence SNVs and indels was annotated using SnpEff(9) and the UCSC known genes database. The analysis workflow is shown in
All citations are hereby incorporated by reference.
The present invention has been described with regard to one or more embodiments. However, it will be apparent to persons skilled in the art that a number of variations and modifications can be made without departing from the scope of the invention as defined in the claims.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/IB2016/055722 | 9/23/2016 | WO | 00 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2017/051387 | 3/30/2017 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20070172873 | Brenner et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 104762399 | Jul 2015 | CN |
| 2011140510 | Nov 2011 | WO |
| 2013130512 | Sep 2013 | WO |
| 2015100427 | Jul 2015 | WO |
| 2015112619 | Jul 2015 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Hamady et al (Nat. Methods, 5(3) 235-237), March (Year: 2008). |
| Chao et al (PLOS One 10(6): 30125471, 1-24, Jun. 11, (Year: 2015). |
| Gohl et al (Genetics, vol. 196, pp. 615-623, March (Year: 2014). |
| Atschul, Stephen F et al (1997), “Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search prograrns”, Nucleic Acids Res. 25:3389-3402. |
| Breese MR1, Liu Y. NGSUtils: a software suite for analyzing and manipulating next-generation sequencing datasets. Bioinformatics. Feb. 15, 2013; 29(4):494-6. |
| Cingolani P1, Platts A, Wang le L, Coon M, Nguyen T, Wang L, Land SJ, Lu X, Ruden DM. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly (Austin). Apr.-Jun. 2012;6(2):80-92. |
| Ding J1, Bashashati A, Roth A, Oloumi A, Tse K, Zeng T, Haffari G, Hirst M, Marra MA, Condon A, Aparicio S, Shah SP. Feature-based classifiers for somatic mutation detection in tumour-normal paired sequencing data. Bioinformatics. Jan. 15, 2012;28(2):167-75. http://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btr629. |
| Flip Van Nieuwerburgh et al, “Quantitative Bias in Illumina TruSeq and a Novel Post Amplification Barcoding Strategy for Multiplexed DNA and Small RNA Deep Sequencing”, vol. 6, No. 10, Jan. 1, 2011, p. e26969. |
| Goya, R., Sun, M. G., Morin, R. D., GG, L, Ha, G., Wiegand, K. C., et al. (2010). SNVMix: predicting single nucleotide variants from next-generation sequencing of tumors. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 26(6), 730-736. http://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq040). |
| Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. (2013). arXiv:1303.3997v1 [q-bio.GN] 3 pages. |
| Li H1, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, Marth G, Abecasis G, Durbin R; 1000 Genome Project Data Processing Subgroup. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. Aug. 15, 2009;25 (16):2078-9. |
| Saunders CT1, Wong WS, Swamy S, Becq J, Murray LJ, Cheetham RK. Strelka: accurate somatic small-variant calling from sequenced tumor-normal sample pairs. Bioinformatics. Jul. 15, 2012;28(14):1811-7. |
| Tulpan DC and Hoos HH (2003). Hybrid randomized neighbourhoods improve stochastic local search for DNA code design. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2671:418:433. 16 pages. |
| Untergasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth BC, Remm M and Rozen SG. (2012), Primer3—new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(15):e115. 12 pages. |
| Extended European Search Report dated Mar. 1, 2019, issued in corresponding European Application No. 16848253.7. 8 pages. |
| Office Action dated Sep. 16, 2019 issued in the corresponding Chilean patent application No. 201800756. 7 pages. |
| Office Action dated Jul. 23, 2019, issued in the corresponding Singaporean patent application No. 11201802137V. 9 pages. |
| Fox. E.J. et al., “Accuracy of next generation sequencing platforms”, Next Gener. Seq. Appl. Jun. 28, 2014 (Feb. 28, 2014). pp. 1-9. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion for Application No. PCT/IB2016/055722, dated Jan. 23, 2017, 13 pages. |
| European Examination Report in corresponding European Patent Application No. 16848253.7 dated Jan. 14, 2020. 4 pages. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20180258479 A1 | Sep 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 62233074 | Sep 2015 | US |
