next-generation sequencing (ngs) workshopc.ymcdn.com/sites/€¦ · · 2016-11-14next-generation...
TRANSCRIPT
1
NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS) WORKSHOPNovember 10-11, 2016
Embassy Suites by Hilton Dallas - DFW Airport South
Is NGS for everyone?
Lee Ann Baxter-LoweUniversity of Southern CaliforniaChildren’s Hospital Los Angeles
NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING (NGS) WORKSHOPNovember 10-11, 2016
Embassy Suites by Hilton Dallas - DFW Airport SouthCONFLICT OF INTERESTLee Ann Baxter-Lowe, Ph.D.
Clinical Professor
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA USA
I have no financial relationships with commercial interests to disclose.
My presentation does not include discussion of off-label or investigational use of drugs.
My presentation includes discussion of investigational laboratory tests.
• Factors to consider in selecting a platform and approach.
• Costs as incentive and barrier
• Strategies for integrating NGS into lab workflow
Is NGS for everyone?
2
Is NGS for my lab?• Typing indications
• Typing volume and turn-around-time
• Local environment
• Cost
Clinical Typing: 1, 2, 3, or 4 fields?• BMT
• Today: 2 field • Tomorrow? 3-4 field
• Solid organ transplant – esp defining DSA, virtual crossmatches• Today: 1-2 field • Tomorrow? 2-4 field
• Disease association and pharmacogenetics• Today: 1-2 field • Tomorrow? 3-4 field
The next advance: HLA expression
Petersdorf et al Blood 2014
HLA-C expression levels define permissible mismatches in hematopoietic cell transplantation
GvHDNon-relapse mortality
3
More reasons for 3 or 4 fields • Any indication where genetic factors affecting expression could be important
• Research (clinical trials, basic & translational)• More information is better• Competition for funding
Expectations for being state-of-the art• Reference lab• Academia
• Transition to future?• Typing entire MHC• Widespread use of NGS (ID, cancer)
Is NGS for my lab?
• Typing indications
• Typing volume and turn-around-time• Local environment
• NGS users in institution• Access to equipment
• Laboratory staff
• Bioinformatics support• Institutional support
• Alternative typing methods• Costs
Balancing cost and turn-around-time
Run frequency Time /run
CostTAT
Samples/runApproach
4
TAT: run frequency is critical factor
Run Frequency
Time/run TAT
2/week 3 days 3-5 working days
2/week 2 days 2-4 working days
Weekly 3 days 3-10 working days
Weekly 2 days 2-9 working days
Every 2 weeks
3 days 17-20 working days
Every 2 weeks
2 days 16-19 working days
Balancing frequency (samples/run) and cost
Samples per run Cost
Calculating Reagent Costs per Sample
Fixed Sample Prep Reagent Cost:
Variable Sequencing Reagent Cost:
Sequencing Reagents Kit ($)
# Samples per sequencing run
Amplification & Library Prep Kit Cost ($)
# Tests per kit
Slide provided by Curt Lind, Thermo Fisher
5
Total Reagent Cost per sample decreases in a decreasing amountSample prep cost remains the same however sequencing cost decreases
Slide provided by Curt Lind, Thermo Fisher
Is NGS for my lab?• Typing indications
• Typing volume and turn-around-time
• Local environment
• Cost
Equipment access
• In lab
• Purchase
• Lease• Reagent purchase
• Shared equipment
• Institutional core laboratory
• Send to high volume sequencing facility
6
Laboratory staff• Expertise with HLA/molecular biology
• Product and vendor• Robust products minimize need
• Vendor support reduces lab requirements
• NGS eliminates need for expertise to resolve ambiguities
• New challenges (optional?)• Non-coding polymorphism
• Predicting impact of novel sequences• Hands on time
• NGS can be less labor intensive than Sanger seq + ambiguity resolution
IT and bioinformatics support•System set-up
• Server
•Data
• Storage•Management
• Bioinformatics• Predominantly commercial products
Advantages to attract institutional support
• Cost effectiveness
• Importance for• Patient care
• Research• Educational environment
• Compatibility with other areas of laboratory medicine
7
NGS is becoming mainstream
•Cancer diagnostics
•Infectious disease
•Genetic diseases
Is NGS for my lab?• Typing indications
• Typing volume and turn-around-time
• Local environment
• Cost
Factors to consider in vendor selection
• Lab’s resources
• Platform
• Performance characteristics
• Practical
• Support
8
Factors to consider in evaluating products
Lab’s resources for evaluating products
• Conferences (e.g., ASHI meetings)
• Evaluation options
•On-site vs off-site • Lab’s cost for evaluation of product
•How many vendor evaluations can be supported by lab?
Factors to consider in typing approach
Platform beyond performance
• Institutional availability • Institutional compatibility (backup)• Capacity/cost of the chip/flow cell
• Flexibility (reagent alternatives for platform)
• If purchasing • Cost of purchase/lease and maintenance
• Reagents
Factors to consider in vendor selection
Performance characteristics
•Accuracy
•Failure rate
•Ambiguities
•Gene coverage
9
What is an acceptable failure rate?
Run Frequency
AcceptableFailure rate
TAT
2/week Highest 3-5 working days
Weekly Low 3-10 working days
Every 2 weeks
0 17-20 working days
Gene coverage
Gene coverage
Whole Gene Coverage
Exon 1 + Exon 2 to Intron 5
Exon 2 to Exon 4
HLA-A (3.1 kb)1 8765432UTR
UTR
1 65432
UTR
UTR
1 65432UTR
UTR
1 65432UTR
UTR
1 65432UTR
UTR
1 432UTR
UTR
1 65432
UTR
UTR
1 432UTR
UTR
1 5432
UTR
UTR
1 765432UTR
UTR
1 8765432UTR
UTR
HLA-B (3.4 kb)
HLA-C (3.4 kb)
HLA-DRB1 (3.7-4.8 kb)
HLA-DQB1 (3.7-4.1 kb)
HLA-DPB1 (5.0 & 5.7 kb)
HLA-DPA1 (4.7 kb)
HLA-DQA1 (5.4-5.8 kb)
HLA-DRB3 (3.8 kb)
HLA-DRB4 (0.4 & 1.3 kb)
HLA-DRB5 (4.0 kb)
NGSgo-AmpX amplification primer
Amplified exon
GENDX
10
Gene coverage
Phasing best with long amplicons
Allele 1Allele 2
AT
GC
Allele 3Allele 4
TA
GC
No phasing with short amplicons if intervening sequence is the identical in both alleles
Phasing possible with long ampliconsA G
Every approach has advantages
Amplicon Length
Long Short
Phasing Best
Base call accuracy Best
PCR efficiency Best
Fragmented DNA Best
Long Short
11
Practical factors to consider
• Packaging • Amenable to lab’s run volume• Flexibility for selecting loci
• Cost/sample• Software
• User friendliness• Features • Quality metrics
• Ease of use/robust
• Time/run• Platform constraints• Automation
Factors to consider in vendor selection
Support
•Technical
•Bioinformatics
•Validation
•Sales
The bells and whistles….
• Packaging • Amenable to lab’s run volume• Flexibility for selecting loci
• Cost/sample• Software
• User friendliness• Features • Quality metrics
• Ease of use/robust• Time/run• Platform constraints• Automation
12
Fundamental NGS metrics
• Coverage• Depth (number of times a base call is made at a
given position)• Uniformity
• Quality Scores• Phred-like quality scores for each base call• Generated by platform-specific algorithms
Assuring the quality of next-generation sequencing in clinical laboratory practiceGargis et al Nature Biotech 2013
Quality Statistics: Depth of Coverage
EU: RUO, ROW: RUO NGSengine
Quality values (Phred-like scores)
• Historically developed to assess Sanger sequencing accuracy • Used multivariate lookup tables• Accurate across sequencing chemistires and instruments
• Algorithm for QV for NGS are system-specific• All QV scores logarithmically related to probability of base calling error
Q = -10 log10 P
Q Value Probability of Error
Accuracy
10 1 in 10 90%
20 1 in 100 99%
30 1 in 1,000 99.9%
40 1 in 10,000 99.99%
50 1 in 100,000 99.999%
SangerNGS
13
Duke et al International Journal of Immunogenetics, 42:346-358, 27 JUN 2015Towards allele‐‐‐‐level human leucocyte antigens genotyping – assessing two next‐‐‐‐generation sequencing platforms: Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine and Illumina MiSeq
Quality score diminishes with read length
PCR Artifact (PCR crossover, chimeric PCR)
Primer extension, but partial length
DenatureAnneal
Partial length product becomes primer for another allele or locus
Extension
Hybrid molecule
Allele imbalance
• PCR efficiency is influenced by DNA sequence
• Numerous factors can contribute to differences in amplification efficiency– Primer mismatch–Denaturation efficiency• GC content• GC clamp
–Sequences that can disrupt polymerase binding
14
40
Noise
Homozygous2 alleles ~50%
Quality Statistics:
Percentage most frequent base call versus rest
Phasing
Allele 1Allele 2
AT
GC
Allele 3Allele 4
TA
GC
Phased A G
Reads
Not Phased
A
Long readsAccuracy
If exceeds length of all reads, phasing will not
be possible
Duke et al International Journal of Immunogenetics, 42:346-358, 27 JUN 2015Towards allele‐‐‐‐level human leucocyte antigens genotyping – assessing two next‐‐‐‐generation sequencing platforms: Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine and Illumina MiSeq
Fragment length
15
Software filters reads, criteria vary
• Low quality value
•Short reads
• PCR crossover
•No alignment
•Multiple possible alignments
Read usage
16
The Traffic Light System
Example of metrics for HLA typing
• Fragment size• Read length• Read quality• Read count• Noise ratio• Exon spot noise ratio• Non-exon spot noise ratio• Exon allele imbalance• Non-exon allele imbalance• PCR crossover artifact ratio• Crossmapping (intergenic ambiguity)• Ambiguous layout (intragenic ambiguity)• Continuous consensus• Fully phased consensus• Consensus coverage exon minimum depth• Consensus coverage non-exon minimum depth• Genotype available• Exon mismatch count• Non-exon mismatch count
Quality Control
17
Mappability
Read length
Read depth
Mismatches
Phasing regions# possible genotypesand typing result
EU: RUO, ROW: RUO
Data analysis with NGSengine
50 All content © 2016 Immucor, Inc.
Review WindowData Review
1
2
51 All content © 2016 Immucor, Inc.
Review Window 2Identification of Correct Allele
Overall Coverage Plot Correct vs. Incorrect Alleles
Central Coverage Plot Correct vs. Incorrect Alleles
18
52 Proprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & Confidential
Genotype Summary
53 Proprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & Confidential Health (Quality) Metrics:• Uniformity of Coverage• Allele Balance• Full Key Exon Coverage (<20X)• Exon Mismatches (>0)
Genotype Summary
54 Proprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialProprietary & ConfidentialMax Read Depth | Coverage Plot
Genotype Summary
(Min Read Depth >200)
Allele 1Allele 2
19
55
Assign 2.0 Coverage View
Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.
Scisco Genetics GeMS-HLA Software
Summary• All systems automate assignments and allow user to drill down.
• Quality metrics are important for
• Acceptance of automated assignment
• Identify typings for manual interpretation
• Trouble shooting
• Criteria for acceptance should be validated by the laboratory
• Many programs available
• Most quality metrics determined by every program
• Presentation variable
• Important to be knowledgeable about software