Detection of gene fusions using targeted next-generation sequencing: a comparative evaluation

Background Gene fusions represent promising targets for cancer therapy in lung cancer. Reliable detection of multiple gene fusions is therefore essential. Methods Five commercially available parallel sequencing assays were evaluated for their ability to detect gene fusions in eight cell lines and 18 FFPE tissue samples carrying a variety of known gene fusions. Four RNA-based assays and one DNA-based assay were compared; two were hybrid capture-based, TruSight Tumor 170 Assay (Illumina) and SureSelect XT HS Custom Panel (Agilent), and three were amplicon-based, Archer FusionPlex Lung Panel (ArcherDX), QIAseq RNAscan Custom Panel (Qiagen) and Oncomine Focus Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results The Illumina assay detected all tested fusions and showed the smallest number of false positive results. Both, the ArcherDX and Qiagen panels missed only one fusion event. Among the RNA-based assays, the Qiagen panel had the highest number of false positive events. The Oncomine Focus Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific) was the least adequate assay for our purposes, seven fusions were not covered by the assay and two fusions were classified as uncertain. The DNA-based SureSelect XT HS Custom Panel (Agilent) missed three fusions and nine fusions were only called by one software version. Additionally, many false positive fusions were observed. Conclusions In summary, especially RNA-based parallel sequencing approaches are potent tools for reliable detection of targetable gene fusions in clinical diagnostics.

Automation of Infectious Focus Assay for Determination of Filovirus Titers and Direct Comparison to Plaque and TCID50 Assays

Ongoing efforts to develop effective therapies against filoviruses rely, to different extents, on quantifying the amount of viable virus in samples by plaque, TCID50, and focus assays. Unfortunately, these techniques have inherent variance, and laboratory-specific preferences make direct comparison of data difficult. Additionally, human errors such as operator errors and subjective bias can further compound the differences in outcomes. To overcome these biases, we developed a computer-based automated image-processing method for a focus assay based on the open-source CellProfiler software platform, which enables high-throughput screening of many treatment samples at one time. We compared virus titers calculated using this platform to plaque and TCID50 assays using common stocks of virus for 3 major Filovirus species, Zaire ebolavirus, Sudan ebolavirus, and Marburg marburgvirus with each assay performed by multiple operators on multiple days. We show that plaque assays give comparable findings that differ by less than 3-fold. Focus-forming unit (FFU) and TCID50 assays differ by 10-fold or less from the plaque assays due a higher (FFU) and lower (TCID50) sensitivity. However, reproducibility and accuracy of each assay differs significantly with Neutral Red Agarose Overlay plaque assays and TCID50 with the lowest reproducibility due to subjective analysis and operator error. Both crystal violet methylcellulose overlay plaque assay and focus assays perform best for accuracy and the focus assay performs best for speed and throughput.