Bhagwate, Aditya

Abstract Background Archived formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) samples are valuable clinical resources to examine clinically relevant morphology features and also to study genetic changes. However, DNA quality and quantity of FFPE samples are often sub-optimal, and resulting NGS-based genetics variant detections are prone to false positives. Evaluations of wet-lab and bioinformatics approaches are needed to optimize variant detection from FFPE samples. Results As a pilot study, we designed within-subject triplicate samples of DNA derived from paired FFPE and fresh frozen breast tissues to highlight FFPE-specific artifacts. For FFPE samples, we tested two FFPE DNA extraction methods to determine impact of wet-lab procedures on variant calling: QIAGEN QIAamp DNA Mini Kit ("QA"), and QIAGEN GeneRead DNA FFPE Kit ("QGR"). We also used negative-control (NA12891) and positive control samples (Horizon Discovery Reference Standard FFPE). All DNA sample libraries were prepared for NGS according to the QIAseq Human Breast Cancer Targeted DNA Panel protocol and sequenced on the HiSeq 4000. Variant calling and filtering were performed using QIAGEN Gene Globe Data Portal. Detailed variant concordance comparisons and mutational signature analysis were performed to investigate effects of FFPE samples compared to paired fresh frozen samples, along with different library preparations. In this study, we found that five times or more variants were called with FFPE samples, compared to their paired fresh-frozen tissue samples even after applying molecular barcoding error-correction and default bioinformatics filtering recommended by the vendor. We also found that QGR as an optimized FFPE-DNA extraction approach leads to much fewer discordant variants between paired fresh frozen and FFPE samples. Approximately 92% of the uniquely called FFPE variants were of low allelic frequency range (<5%), and collectively shared a “C>T|G>A” mutational signature known to be representative of FFPE artifacts resulting fromcytosine deamination. Based on control samples and FFPE-frozen replicates, we derived an effective filtering strategy with associated empirical false-discovery estimates. Conclusions Through this study, we demonstrated feasibility of calling and filtering genetic variants from FFPE tissue samples using a combined strategy with molecular barcodes, optimized DNA extraction, and bioinformatics methods incorporating genomics context such as mutational signature and variant allelic frequency.

Abstract Background Archived formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) samples are valuable clinical resources to examine clinically relevant morphology features and also to study genetic changes. However, DNA quality and quantity of FFPE samples are often sub-optimal, and resulting NGS-based genetics variant detections are prone to false positives. Evaluations of wet-lab and bioinformatics approaches are needed to optimize variant detection from FFPE samples. Results As a pilot study, we designed within-subject triplicate samples of DNA derived from paired FFPE and fresh frozen breast tissues to highlight FFPE-specific artifacts. For FFPE samples, we tested two FFPE DNA extraction methods to determine impact of wet-lab procedures on variant calling: QIAGEN QIAamp DNA Mini Kit ("QA"), and QIAGEN GeneRead DNA FFPE Kit ("QGR"). We also used negative-control (NA12891) and positive control samples (Horizon Discovery Reference Standard FFPE). All DNA sample libraries were prepared for NGS according to the QIAseq Human Breast Cancer Targeted DNA Panel protocol and sequenced on the HiSeq 4000. Variant calling and filtering were performed using QIAGEN Gene Globe Data Portal. Detailed variant concordance comparisons and mutational signature analysis were performed to investigate effects of FFPE samples compared to paired fresh frozen samples, along with different library preparations. In this study, we found that five times or more variants were called with FFPE samples, compared to their paired fresh-frozen tissue samples even after applying molecular barcoding error-correction and default bioinformatics filtering recommended by the vendor. We also found that QGR as an optimized FFPE-DNA extraction approach leads to much fewer discordant variants between paired fresh frozen and FFPE samples. Approximately 92% of the uniquely called FFPE variants were of low allelic frequency range (<5%), and collectively shared a “C>T|G>A” mutational signature known to be representative of FFPE artifacts resulting fromcytosine deamination. Based on control samples and FFPE-frozen replicates, we derived an effective filtering strategy with associated empirical false-discovery estimates. Conclusions Through this study, we demonstrated feasibility of calling and filtering genetic variants from FFPE tissue samples using a combined strategy with molecular barcodes, optimized DNA extraction, and bioinformatics methods incorporating genomics context such as mutational signature and variant allelic frequency.

Abstract Motivation: RNA-seq has become the method of choice to quantify genes and exons, discover novel transcripts and detect fusion genes. However, reliable variant identification from RNA-seq data remains challenging because of the complexities of the transcriptome, the challenges of accurately mapping exon boundary spanning reads and the bias introduced during the sequencing library preparation. Method: We developed RVboost, a novel method specific for RNA variant prioritization. RVboost uses several attributes unique in the process of RNA library preparation, sequencing and RNA-seq data analyses. It uses a boosting method to train a model of ‘good quality’ variants using common variants from HapMap, and prioritizes and calls the RNA variants based on the trained model. We packaged RVboost in a comprehensive workflow, which integrates tools of variant calling, annotation and filtering. Results: RVboost consistently outperforms the variant quality score recalibration from the Genome Analysis Tool Kit and the RNA-seq variant-calling pipeline SNPiR in 12 RNA-seq samples using ground-truth variants from paired exome sequencing data. Several RNA-seq–specific attributes were identified as critical to differentiate true and false variants, including the distance of the variant positions to exon boundaries, and the percent of the reads supporting the variant in the first six base pairs. The latter identifies false variants introduced by the random hexamer priming during the library construction. Availability and implementation: The RVboost package is implemented to readily run in Mac or Linux environments. The software and user manual are available at http://bioinformaticstools.mayo.edu/research/rvboost/. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Abstract Motivation: Exome sequencing (exome-seq) data, which are typically used for calling exonic mutations, have also been utilized in detecting DNA copy number variations (CNVs). Despite the existence of several CNV detection tools, there is still a great need for a sensitive and an accurate CNV-calling algorithm with built-in QC steps, and does not require a paired reference for each sample. Results: We developed a novel method named PatternCNV, which (i) accounts for the read coverage variations between exons while leveraging the consistencies of this variability across different samples; (ii) reduces alignment BAM files to WIG format and therefore greatly accelerates computation; (iii) incorporates multiple QC measures designed to identify outlier samples and batch effects; and (iv) provides a variety of visualization options including chromosome, gene and exon-level views of CNVs, along with a tabular summarization of the exon-level CNVs. Compared with other CNV-calling algorithms using data from a lymphoma exome-seq study, PatternCNV has higher sensitivity and specificity. Availability and implementation: The software for PatternCNV is implemented using Perl and R, and can be used in Mac or Linux environments. Software and user manual are available at http://bioinformaticstools.mayo.edu/research/patterncnv/ , and R package at https://github.com/topsoil/patternCNV/ . Contact: Asmann.Yan@mayo.edu Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.