Clinical Evaluation of a Novel Nine-Gene Panel for Ion Torrent PGM Sequencing of Myeloid Malignancies
- 171 Downloads
Background and Objective
In the last decade, a number of genes have been reported to be recurrently associated with myeloid malignancies. While some mutations are easily detectable by conventional molecular genetics methods, other mutations are more difficult to screen because of lower frequency and being scattered along large genomic ranges. However, newly developed approaches for next-generation sequencing provide an affordable solution for targeted multiplex resequencing of up to several hundreds of amplicons. Here, we aimed to develop and validate a novel custom panel for targeted resequencing of myeloid malignancy samples using the Ion PGM™ System (Ion Torrent, Paisley, UK).
We designed a pool of 424 primers for the amplification of 212 amplicons covering 99.46 % of the exonic regions of nine human genes as follows: ASXL1, EZH2, CALR, RUNX1, SETBP1, SF3B1, SRSF2, TET2, and U2AF1. Initial testing of the panel performance was performed on an Ion PGM™ machine using PGM™ 316 v2 chips on 16 DNA samples from patients with myeloid malignancies. Sequence alignment, variant calling, and annotation were performed using Ion Reporter software.
We identified a total of 14 nonsynonymous somatic coding variants in seven samples affecting six of the genes in the panel (ASXL1, CALR, RUNX1, SRSF2, TET2, and U2AF1). Notably, three of the identified mutations were not present in the Cosmic v.67 release.
This proof-of-concept study confirms the feasibility of Ion Torrent systems for resequencing of clinically relevant mutations in myeloid malignancies. It can be particularly useful in cases without the most frequent clonal markers.
KeywordsAcute Myeloid Leukemia Polycythemia Vera Myeloid Malignancy Minimal Residual Disease Monitoring Custom Panel
We thank the Department of Hematology at Alexandrovska University Hospital for providing the clinical samples for the study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
MI, VS, IP, KL, and EN report no conflict of interest.
MI, VS, IP, KL, and EN received no specific funding for this research.
Ethical approval and informed consent
Patients provided informed consent for molecular genetic testing and this study complied with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
- 6.Luthra R, Patel KP, Reddy NG, Haghshenas V, Routbort MJ, Harmon MA, et al. Next-generation sequencing-based multigene mutational screening for acute myeloid leukemia using MiSeq: applicability for diagnostics and disease monitoring. Haematologica. 2014;99(3):465–73. doi: 10.3324/haematol.2013.093765.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Ok CY, Patel KP, Garcia-Manero G, Routbort MJ, Fu B, Tang G, et al. Mutational profiling of therapy-related myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia by next generation sequencing, a comparison with de novo diseases. Leuk Res. 2015;39(3):348–54. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2014.12.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kohlmann A, Nadarajah N, Alpermann T, Grossmann V, Schindela S, Dicker F, et al. Monitoring of residual disease by next-generation deep-sequencing of RUNX1 mutations can identify acute myeloid leukemia patients with resistant disease. Leukemia. 2014;28(1):129–37. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Bartels S, Schipper E, Kreipe HH, Lehmann U. Comprehensive molecular profiling of archival bone marrow trephines using a commercially available leukemia panel and semiconductor-based targeted resequencing. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133930. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133930.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.McCourt CM, McArt DG, Mills K, Catherwood MA, Maxwell P, Waugh DJ, et al. Validation of next generation sequencing technologies in comparison to current diagnostic gold standards for BRAF, EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069604.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar