Why the study?
Increasing evidence indicates that both coding and non-coding regions of sarcomeric protein genes can contribute to HCM, prompting evaluation of complete gene sequencing via long-read nanopore technology.
Does Oxford Nanopore Technology sequencing accurately identify and phase mutations in common HCM genes compared to Illumina/Sanger sequencing in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Does Oxford Nanopore Technology sequencing accurately identify and phase mutations in common HCM genes compared to Illumina/Sanger sequencing in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Oxford Nanopore Technology enables direct haplotype determination for HCM genes but currently has a higher error rate for variant calling compared to Illumina, requiring refinement before clinical application.
ONT workflow enables complete HCM gene sequencing in small cohorts; leaves open clinical adoption pending larger validation.
Increasing evidence suggests that both coding and non-coding regions of sarcomeric protein genes can contribute to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Here, we introduce an experimental workflow (tested on four patients) for complete sequencing of the most common HCM genes (MYBPC3, MYH7, TPM1, TNNT2, and TNNI3) via long-range PCR, Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) sequencing, and bioinformatic analysis. We applied Illumina and Sanger sequencing to validate the results, FastQC, Qualimap, and MultiQC for quality evaluations, MiniMap2 to align data, Clair3 to call and phase variants, and Annovar’s tools and CADD to assess pathogenicity of variants. We could not amplify the region encompassing exons 6–12 of MYBPC3. A higher sequencing error rate was observed with ONT (6.86–6.92%) than with Illumina technology (1.14–1.35%), mostly for small indels. Pathogenic variant p.Gln1233Ter and benign polymorphism p.Arg326Gln in MYBPC3 in a heterozygous state were found in one patient. We demonstrated the ability of ONT to phase single-nucleotide variants, enabling direct haplotype determination for genes TNNT2 and TPM1. These findings highlight the importance of long-range PCR efficiency, as well as lower accuracy of variant calling by ONT than by Illumina technology; these differences should be clarified prior to clinical application of the ONT method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Салахов et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: