Effect of Sequencing Platforms on the Sensitivity of Chemical Mutation Detection Using Hawk-Seq™

Overview

Journal Genes Environ

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Environmental Health

Date 2024 Oct 10

PMID 39385252

Authors

Sayaka Hosoi

Takako Hirose

Shoji Matsumura

Yuki Otsubo

Kazutoshi Saito

Masaaki Miyazawa

Takayoshi Suzuki

Kenichi Masumura

Kei-Ichi Sugiyama

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Error-corrected next-generation sequencing (ecNGS) technologies have enabled the direct evaluation of genome-wide mutations after exposure to mutagens. Previously, we reported an ecNGS methodology, Hawk-Seq™, and demonstrated its utility in evaluating mutagenicity. The evaluation of technical transferability is essential to further evaluate the reliability of ecNGS-based assays. However, cutting-edge sequencing platforms are continually evolving, which can affect the sensitivity of ecNGS. Therefore, the effect of differences in sequencing instruments on mutation data quality should be evaluated.

Results: We assessed the performance of four sequencing platforms (HiSeq2500, NovaSeq6000, NextSeq2000, and DNBSEQ-G400) with the Hawk-Seq™ protocol for mutagenicity evaluation using DNA samples from mouse bone marrow exposed to benzo[a]pyrene (BP). The overall mutation (OM) frequencies per 10 bp in vehicle-treated samples were 0.22, 0.36, 0.46, and 0.26 for HiSeq2500, NovaSeq6000, NextSeq2000, and DNBSEQ-G400, respectively. The OM frequency of NextSeq2000 was significantly higher than that of HiSeq2500, suggesting the difference to be based on the platform. The relatively higher value in NextSeq2000 was a consequence of the G:C to C:G mutations in NextSeq2000 data (0.67 per 10 G:C bp), which was higher than the mean of the four platforms by a ca. of 0.25 per 10 G:C bp. A clear dose-dependent increase in G:C to T:A mutation frequencies was observed in all four sequencing platforms after BP exposure. The cosine similarity values of the 96-dimensional trinucleotide mutation patterns between HiSeq and the three other platforms were 0.93, 0.95, and 0.92 for NovaSeq, NextSeq, and DNBSeq, respectively. These results suggest that all platforms can provide equivalent data that reflect the characteristics of the mutagens.

Conclusions: All platforms sensitively detected mutagen-induced mutations using the Hawk-Seq™ analysis. The substitution types and frequencies of the background errors differed depending on the platform. The effects of sequencing platforms on mutagenicity evaluation should be assessed before experimentation.

References

LeBlanc D, Meier M, Lo F, Schmidt E, Valentine 3rd C, Williams A . Duplex sequencing identifies genomic features that determine susceptibility to benzo(a)pyrene-induced in vivo mutations. BMC Genomics. 2022; 23(1):542. PMC: 9331077. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-08752-w. View

Stoler N, Nekrutenko A . Sequencing error profiles of Illumina sequencing instruments. NAR Genom Bioinform. 2021; 3(1):lqab019. PMC: 8002175. DOI: 10.1093/nargab/lqab019. View

Alexandrov L, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge D, Campbell P, Stratton M . Deciphering signatures of mutational processes operative in human cancer. Cell Rep. 2013; 3(1):246-59. PMC: 3588146. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.12.008. View

Korostin D, Kulemin N, Naumov V, Belova V, Kwon D, Gorbachev A . Comparative analysis of novel MGISEQ-2000 sequencing platform vs Illumina HiSeq 2500 for whole-genome sequencing. PLoS One. 2020; 15(3):e0230301. PMC: 7075590. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230301. View

Hartung T, Bremer S, Casati S, Coecke S, Corvi R, Fortaner S . A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. Altern Lab Anim. 2005; 32(5):467-72. DOI: 10.1177/026119290403200503. View

Ueda S, Yamashita S, Nakajima M, Kumamoto T, Ogawa C, Liu Y . A quantification method of somatic mutations in normal tissues and their accumulation in pediatric patients with chemotherapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022; 119(31):e2123241119. PMC: 9351471. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2123241119. View

Travers K, Chin C, Rank D, Eid J, Turner S . A flexible and efficient template format for circular consensus sequencing and SNP detection. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010; 38(15):e159. PMC: 2926623. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq543. View

Schmitt M, Kennedy S, Salk J, Fox E, Hiatt J, Loeb L . Detection of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012; 109(36):14508-13. PMC: 3437896. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1208715109. View

Langmead B, Salzberg S . Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods. 2012; 9(4):357-9. PMC: 3322381. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1923. View

10.

Shibutani S, Takeshita M, Grollman A . Insertion of specific bases during DNA synthesis past the oxidation-damaged base 8-oxodG. Nature. 1991; 349(6308):431-4. DOI: 10.1038/349431a0. View

11.

Kennedy S, Schmitt M, Fox E, Kohrn B, Salk J, Ahn E . Detecting ultralow-frequency mutations by Duplex Sequencing. Nat Protoc. 2014; 9(11):2586-606. PMC: 4271547. DOI: 10.1038/nprot.2014.170. View

12.

Manley L, Ma D, Levine S . Monitoring Error Rates In Illumina Sequencing. J Biomol Tech. 2016; 27(4):125-128. PMC: 5026502. DOI: 10.7171/jbt.16-2704-002. View

13.

Schirmer M, DAmore R, Ijaz U, Hall N, Quince C . Illumina error profiles: resolving fine-scale variation in metagenomic sequencing data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2016; 17:125. PMC: 4787001. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-0976-y. View

14.

Marchetti F, Cardoso R, Chen C, Douglas G, Elloway J, Escobar P . Error-corrected next-generation sequencing to advance nonclinical genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023; 22(3):165-166. DOI: 10.1038/d41573-023-00014-y. View

15.

You X, Cao Y, Suzuki T, Shao J, Zhu B, Masumura K . Genome-wide direct quantification of in vivo mutagenesis using high-accuracy paired-end and complementary consensus sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023; 51(21):e109. PMC: 10681716. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkad909. View

16.

Costello M, Pugh T, Fennell T, Stewart C, Lichtenstein L, Meldrim J . Discovery and characterization of artifactual mutations in deep coverage targeted capture sequencing data due to oxidative DNA damage during sample preparation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(6):e67. PMC: 3616734. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1443. View

17.

Sloan D, Broz A, Sharbrough J, Wu Z . Detecting Rare Mutations and DNA Damage with Sequencing-Based Methods. Trends Biotechnol. 2018; 36(7):729-740. PMC: 6004327. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.02.009. View

18.

Bigger C, Ponten I, Page J, Dipple A . Mutational spectra for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the supF target gene. Mutat Res. 2000; 450(1-2):75-93. DOI: 10.1016/s0027-5107(00)00017-8. View

19.

You X, Thiruppathi S, Liu W, Cao Y, Naito M, Furihata C . Detection of genome-wide low-frequency mutations with Paired-End and Complementary Consensus Sequencing (PECC-Seq) revealed end-repair-derived artifacts as residual errors. Arch Toxicol. 2020; 94(10):3475-3485. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-020-02832-0. View

20.

Matsumura S, Sato H, Otsubo Y, Tasaki J, Ikeda N, Morita O . Genome-wide somatic mutation analysis via Hawk-Seq™ reveals mutation profiles associated with chemical mutagens. Arch Toxicol. 2019; 93(9):2689-2701. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-019-02541-3. View