Zuckerman, Eric Zimmerman

Abstract Background We evaluated the Tecan Fluent Mix and Pierce Workstation as an automated platform to aliquot directly from whole blood collection tubes. The Fluent Mix and Pierce Workstation uses the Tube Rotator™, an on-deck rotisserie, to keep whole blood in suspension, and 8 Piercing Tips™ to cross the pierceable caps of collection tubes to aliquot samples. Methods We performed accuracy and precision testing by aliquoting residual whole blood specimens into an on-deck gravimetric scale. To test carryover, we aliquoted alternating blanks and high calibrators for several analytes and performed mass spectrometry on the blanks. We performed 168 runs over a 21-day period to test the robustness of the platform. We aliquoted and analyzed 2 batches of samples on both our clinical platform and the Mix and Pierce Workstation to check concordance. Results We observed that the Fluent Mix and Pierce Workstation can aliquot 200 µL with 0.5% inaccuracy and 0.9%CV and can aliquot 300 µL with 0.1% inaccuracy and 0.7%CV. We were unable to detect any analyte carryover using mass spectrometry. We observed no hardware failures during the instrument stress test. Clinical comparison runs indicated that the performance of aliquots made on the Fluent Mix and Pierce Workstation was equivalent to that of aliquots made by our current clinical method. Conclusions Overall, our evaluation showed that the Tecan Fluent Mix and Pierce Workstation is a viable platform for aliquoting whole blood for downstream work flows and can eliminate labor-intensive sample decapping and recapping in high-throughput settings.

Abstract Background Our institution is facing increasing demand for oncology testing that requires high quality DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. The current DNA extraction workflow involves a time and labor-intensive manual process that limits our ability to accommodate increasing downstream clinical testing volumes. We evaluated the KingFisher (KF) Flex utilizing Autolys M Tubes and the MagMAX FFPE DNA/RNA Ultra Kit as a possible high-throughput, automated DNA isolation workflow option that would decrease hands-on time and be conducive to volume growth without the need for additional staff. Methods DNA from 52 FFPE tissue samples (n=24 unique cases previously extracted by the current “manual method”) were extracted using Autolys M tubes, the MagMAX FFPE DNA/RNA Ultra Kit, and the KF Flex (Thermo Fisher Scientific Waltham, MA) over 4 “automated method” runs. Method modifications to the published procedure were introduced over the runs to determine any effects on DNA quality/quantity. Timings were taken during each run to compare hands-on and total run time against that of the manual method. Precision experiments were performed by extracting 4 replicates of sample on a single run (intra-assay precision) and 2 samples from 2 cases over 2 runs (inter-assay precision). Three cases were processed using varying tissue input levels to assess input-yield correlation. DNA yield was measured using HS dsDNA Qubit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). A subset of samples was tested by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) (n=10), chromosomal microsomal microarray (CMA) (n=1), and next-generation sequencing (NGS) (n=3). Variants and QC metrics of the KF DNA were compared to those of the manual method DNA. Results The average total DNA yield was 3% lower from samples extracted following the manufacturer recommended KF procedure compared to matched samples extracted using the manual method (n=28 samples from 23 unique cases). A CV of 2.8% was observed in an intra-assay experiment (n=4 replicates from 1 case) and 3.0% in an average inter-assay experiment (n=2 replicates from 2 cases). There was a direct correlation between the tissue input amount (4 amounts of varied tissue input) and the total DNA yield (n=3 samples). We observed concordant fractional abundance values for ddPCR samples and concordant variant detection for NGS and CMA samples. We did not see a significant difference in the quality metrics tracked for any of the downstream testing assays. Conclusions This evaluation demonstrated that, as compared to our manual method, the automated method resulted in comparable DNA yields and downstream assay results. The incorporation of this automation would significantly increase our FFPE DNA extraction capacity without requiring additional staff while reducing hands-on time per run by about six hours. We would also be able to reduce ergonomic hazards related to tube cap manipulation, eliminate use of hazardous reagents, and leverage the plate format to better integrate extracted DNA into our clinical sample preparation workflows. These operational benefits highlight the value of automating high-throughput workflows.

Abstract Background Deafness and hearing loss are common conditions that can be seen independently or as part of a syndrome and are often mediated by genetic causes. We sought to develop and validate a hereditary hearing loss panel (HHLP) to detect single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions and deletions (indels), and copy number variants (CNVs) in 166 genes related to nonsyndromic and syndromic hearing loss. Methods We developed a custom-capture next-generation sequencing (NGS) reagent to detect all coding regions, ±10 flanking bp, for the 166 genes related to nonsyndromic and syndromic hearing loss. Our validation consisted of testing 52 samples to establish accuracy, reproducibility, and analytical sensitivity. In addition to NGS, supplementary methods, including multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, long-range PCR, and Sanger sequencing, were used to ensure coverage of regions that had high complexity or homology. Results We observed 100% positive and negative percentage agreement for detection of SNVs (n = 362), small indels (1–22 bp, n = 25), and CNVs (gains, n = 8; losses, n = 17). Finally, we showed that this assay was able to detect variants with a variant allele frequency ≥20% for SNVs and indels and ≥30% to 35% for CNVs. Conclusions We validated an HHLP that detects SNVs, indels, and CNVs in 166 genes related to syndromic and nonsyndromic hearing loss. The results of this assay can be utilized to confirm a diagnosis of hearing loss and related syndromic disorders associated with known causal genes.