Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 6, 2025
Comparative Lesions Analysis Through a Targeted Sequencing Approach
Published on: November 5, 2019
Technical in-depth comparison of two massive parallel DNA-sequencing methods for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded
Emma Adolfsson1, Alvida Qvick1, Henrik Gréen2
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro Sweden.
Abstract:
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a tragic and traumatic event. SCD is often associated with hereditary genetic disease and in such cases, sequencing of stored formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue is often crucial in trying to find a causal genetic variant. This study was designed to compare two massive parallel sequencing assays for differences in sensitivity and precision regarding variants related to SCD in FFPE material. From eight cases of SCD where DNA from blood had been sequenced using HaloPlex, corresponding FFPE samples were collected six years later. DNA from FFPE samples were amplified using HaloPlex HS, sequenced on MiSeq, representing the first method, as well as amplified using modified Twist and sequenced on NextSeq, representing the second method. Molecular barcodes were included to distinguish artefacts from true variants. In both approaches, read coverage, uniformity and variant detection were compared using genomic DNA isolated from blood and corresponding FFPE tissue, respectively. In terms of coverage uniformity, Twist performed better than HaloPlex HS for FFPE samples. Despite higher overall coverage, amplicon-based HaloPlex technologies, both for blood and FFPE tissue, suffered from design and/or performance issues resulting in genes lacking complete coverage. Although Twist had considerably lower overall mean coverage, high uniformity resulted in equal or higher fraction of genes covered at ≥ 20X. By comparing variants found in the matched samples in a pre-defined cardiodiagnostic gene panel, HaloPlex HS for FFPE material resulted in high sensitivity, 98.0% (range 96.6-100%), and high precision, 99.9% (range 99.5-100%) for moderately fragmented samples, but suffered from reduced sensitivity (range 74.2-91.1%) in more severely fragmented samples due to lack of coverage. Twist had high sensitivity, 97.8% (range 96.8-98.7%) and high precision, 99.9% (range 99.3-100%) in all analyzed samples, including the severely fragmented samples.
