High concordance in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy between automatic identification via Ion S5 and manual identification via Miseq
Abstract The Ion S5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Miseq (Illumina) NGS systems are both widely used in the clinical laboratories conducting PGT-A. Each system employs discrepant library preparation steps, sequencing principles, and data processing algorithms. The automatic interpretation via Ion Re...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/03b8fa4cbcc349fc87b2ff66a1d8e044 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract The Ion S5 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and Miseq (Illumina) NGS systems are both widely used in the clinical laboratories conducting PGT-A. Each system employs discrepant library preparation steps, sequencing principles, and data processing algorithms. The automatic interpretation via Ion Reporter software (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the manual interpretation via BlueFuse Multi software (Illumina) for chromosomal copy number variation (CNV) represent very different reporting approaches. Thus, it is intriguing to compare their ability of ploidy detection as PGT-A/NGS system. In the present study, four aneuploid cell lines were individually mixed with a diploid cell line at different aneuploid ratios of 0% (0:5), 10% (1:9), 20% (1:4), 40% (2:3), 50% (3:3), 60% (3:2), 80% (4:1) and 100% (5:0) to assess the sensitivity and specificity for whole chromosomal and segmental aneuploidy detection. The clinical biopsies of 107 blastocysts from 46 IVF/PGT-A cycles recruited between December 2019 and February 2020 were used to calculate the concordance. Initially, the pre-amplified products were divided into two aliquots for different library preparation procedures of each system. Applying the same calling criteria, automatic identification was achieved through the Ion Reporter, while well-trained technicians manually identified each sample through the BlueFuse Multi. The results displayed that both systems reliably distinguished chromosomal CNV of the mixtures with at least 10% aneuploidy from karyotypically normal samples ([Ion S5] whole-chromosomal duplication: 2.14 vs. 2.05, p value = 0.009, segmental deletion: 1.88 vs. 2.05, p value = 0.003; [Miseq] whole-chromosomal duplication: 2.12 vs. 2.03, p value = 0.047, segmental deletion: 1.82 vs. 2.03, p value = 0.002). The sensitivity and specificity were comparable between the Ion S5 and Miseq ([sensitivity] 93% vs. 90%, p = 0.78; [specificity] 100% vs. 100%, p value = 1.0). In the 107 clinical biopsies, three displayed chaotic patterns (2.8%), which could not be interpreted for the ploidy. The ploidy concordance was 99.04% (103/104) per embryo and 99.47% (2265/2277) per chromosome pair. Since their ability of detection were proven to be similar, the automatic identification in Ion S5 system presents comparatively faster and more standardized performance. |
|---|