throbber
Clinical Chemistry 57:7
`1042–1049 (2011)
`
`Molecular Diagnostics and Genetics
`
`Optimal Detection of Fetal Chromosomal Abnormalities by
`Massively Parallel DNA Sequencing of Cell-Free Fetal DNA
`from Maternal Blood
`Amy J. Sehnert,1 Brian Rhees,1,2 David Comstock,1 Eileen de Feo,1 Gabrielle Heilek,1,3
`John Burke,4 and Richard P. Rava1*
`
`BACKGROUND: Massively parallel DNA sequencing of
`cell-free fetal DNA from maternal blood can detect fe-
`tal chromosomal abnormalities. Although existing al-
`gorithms focus on the detection of fetal trisomy 21
`(T21), these same algorithms have difficulty detecting
`trisomy 18 (T18).
`
`METHODS: Blood samples were collected from 1014 pa-
`tients at 13 US clinic locations before they underwent
`an invasive prenatal procedure. All samples were pro-
`cessed to plasma, and the DNA extracted from 119
`samples underwent massively parallel DNA sequenc-
`ing. Fifty-three sequenced samples came from women
`with an abnormal fetal karyotype. To minimize the
`intra- and interrun sequencing variation, we developed
`an optimized algorithm by using normalized chromo-
`some values (NCVs) from the sequencing data on a
`training set of 71 samples with 26 abnormal karyo-
`types. The classification process was then evaluated on
`an independent test set of 48 samples with 27 abnormal
`karyotypes.
`
`RESULTS: Mapped sites for chromosomes of interest in
`the sequencing data from the training set were normal-
`ized individually by calculating the ratio of the number
`of sites on the specified chromosome to the number of
`sites observed on an optimized normalizing chromo-
`some (or chromosome set). Threshold values for tri-
`somy or sex chromosome classification were then es-
`tablished for all chromosomes of
`interest, and a
`classification schema was defined. Sequencing of the
`independent test set led to 100% correct classification
`of T21 (13 of 13) and T18 (8 of 8) samples. Other chro-
`mosomal abnormalities were also identified.
`
`CONCLUSION: Massively parallel sequencing is capable
`of detecting multiple fetal chromosomal abnormalities
`
`from maternal plasma when an optimized algorithm is
`used.
`© 2011 American Association for Clinical Chemistry
`
`The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology
`Practice Bulletin no. 77, published in 2007, supports
`the measurement of nuchal translucency and surrogate
`biochemical markers in all pregnant women in the first
`trimester to assess the risk of aneuploidy for Down syn-
`drome (1 ). These screening tests can provide only an
`inconclusive risk determination; they have nonoptimal
`detection and high false-positive rates. Today, only in-
`vasive methods, including chorionic villus sampling
`(CVS),3 amniocentesis, or cordocentesis, provide defi-
`nite genetic information about the fetus, but these pro-
`cedures are associated with risks to both mother and
`fetus (2– 4 ). Therefore, a noninvasive means to obtain
`definite information on fetal chromosomal status is
`desirable.
`Fan et al., in 2008, were the first to suggest count-
`ing chromosomes by mapping sequence tags as a po-
`tential quantification method for detecting fetal aneu-
`ploidy from cell-free DNA (cfDNA) obtained from
`maternal blood (5, 6 ). In these studies, massively par-
`allel DNA sequencing of cfDNA obtained from the ma-
`ternal plasma yielded millions of short sequence tags
`that could be aligned and uniquely mapped to sites
`from a reference human genome. The depth of se-
`quencing and subsequent counting statistics determine
`the sensitivity of detection for fetal aneuploidy (7 ).
`Although 2 recently published reports of studies
`with larger populations have described the successful
`use of sequence tag mapping and chromosome count-
`ing to detect fetal aneuploidy, these studies focused
`only on the classification of trisomy 21 (T21) (8, 9 ).
`The algorithms used in these studies appear to be un-
`
`1 Verinata Health, Inc., San Carlos, CA; 2 current affiliation: Caris Life Sciences,
`Phoenix, AZ; 3 current affiliation: Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA;
`4 Biotique Systems, Reno, NV.
`* Address correspondence to this author at: 1531 Industrial Rd., San Carlos, CA
`94070. Fax ⫹650-362-2151; e-mail rrava@verinata.com.
`
`Received March 17, 2011; accepted April 8, 2011.
`Previously published online at DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.165910
`3 Nonstandard abbreviations: CVS, chorionic villus sampling; cfDNA, cell-free
`DNA; T21, trisomy 21; T18, trisomy 18; NCV, normalized chromosome value;
`T13, trisomy 13.
`
`1042
`
`00001
`
`EX1054
`
`

`

`Optimal Detection of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing
`
`able to effectively detect other aneuploidies, such as
`trisomy 18 (T18), that would inevitably occur in a clin-
`ical population being offered a commercially available
`test. In this study, we developed and tested an opti-
`mized algorithm from massively parallel sequencing
`data and demonstrated the potential universality
`of the sequence tag mapping and chromosome-
`quantification method for the detection of multiple
`chromosomal abnormalities.
`
`Materials and Methods
`
`BLOOD SAMPLES AND CLINICAL INFORMATION
`The study was conducted by qualified clinical research
`personnel at 13 US clinic locations between April 2009
`and July 2010 under a human participant protocol ap-
`proved by institutional review boards at each institu-
`tion. Informed written consent was obtained from each
`woman before her inclusion in the study.
`The protocol was designed to provide blood sam-
`ples and clinical data to support the development of
`noninvasive prenatal genetic diagnostic methods.
`Pregnant women age 18 years or older were eligible for
`inclusion. For patients undergoing clinically indicated
`CVS or amniocentesis, blood was collected before per-
`formance of the procedure, and fetal-karyotyping re-
`sults were also collected. Peripheral blood samples (2
`tubes or approximately 20 mL total) were drawn from
`all participants and collected into tubes containing acid
`citrate dextrose (Becton Dickinson). All samples were
`deidentified and assigned an anonymous study identi-
`fication number. Blood samples were shipped over-
`night to Verinata Health, Inc. (San Carlos, CA) in
`temperature-controlled shipping containers provided
`for the study. The time elapsed between blood draw
`and sample receipt was recorded upon accessioning at
`the Verinata Health laboratory.
`Site research coordinators used the anonymous
`patient identification number in entering clinical data
`relevant to the patient’s current pregnancy and history
`into study case-report forms. Cytogenetic analysis of
`the fetal karyotype from samples obtained in invasive
`prenatal procedure was performed per the local labo-
`ratories, and these results were also recorded in the
`study case-report forms. All data obtained on the forms
`were entered into a clinical database at Verinata
`Health.
`
`SAMPLE PROCESSING AND SEQUENCING
`Cell-free plasma was obtained from individual blood
`tubes within 24 – 48 h of venipuncture via centrifuga-
`tion at 1600g for 10 min, transfer to microcentrifuge
`tubes, and centrifugation at 16 000g for 10 min to re-
`move residual cells. Plasma from a single blood tube
`was sufficient for sequencing analysis. cfDNA was ex-
`
`tracted from cell-free plasma with the QIAamp DNA
`Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufactur-
`er’s instructions. Because cfDNA fragments are known
`to be approximately 170 bp in length (10 ), a DNA-
`fragmentation step was not required before sequenc-
`ing. For the training set samples, we sent cfDNA to
`Prognosys Biosciences to prepare a sequencing library
`(cfDNA blunt-ended and ligated to universal adapters)
`and for sequencing on the Illumina Genome Ana-
`lyzer IIx instrumentation according to the manufac-
`turer’s standard protocols (http://www.illumina.
`com/). Single-end reads of 36 bp were obtained. Upon
`completion of the sequencing, all base-call files were
`transferred to Verinata Health for further analysis. For
`the test set samples, we prepared the sequencing librar-
`ies and carried out the sequencing on the Illumina Ge-
`nome Analyzer IIx instrument at Verinata Health. For
`both the training and test sample sets, single-end reads
`of 36 bp were sequenced.
`
`DATA ANALYSIS AND SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION
`Sequence reads of 36 bases in length were aligned to the
`human genome assembly hg18 obtained from the Uni-
`versity of California, Santa Cruz database (http://
`hgdownload.cse.ucsc.edu/goldenPath/hg18/bigZips/).
`Alignments were carried out by using the Bowtie short
`read aligner (version 0.12.5) and allowing for up to 2
`base mismatches during alignment (11 ). Only reads
`that unambiguously mapped to a single genomic loca-
`tion were included. The genomic sites where reads
`mapped were counted and included in the calculation
`of chromosome ratios (see below). Regions on the Y
`chromosome where sequence tags from male and fe-
`male fetuses map without any discrimination were ex-
`cluded from the analysis (specifically, from base 0 to
`base 2 ⫻ 106, base 10 ⫻ 106 to base 13 ⫻ 106, and base
`23 ⫻ 106 to the end of chromosome Y).
`Intrarun and interrun sequencing variation in the
`chromosomal distribution of sequence reads can ob-
`scure the effects of fetal aneuploidy on the distribution
`of mapped sequence sites. To correct for such varia-
`tion, we calculate a chromosome ratio, in which the
`count of mapped sites for a given chromosome of in-
`terest is normalized to counts observed on another pre-
`determined chromosome (or set of chromosomes). To
`identify the optimal chromosome ratio for each chro-
`mosome of interest, we reviewed the unaffected subset
`of the training data (i.e., including only samples with
`diploid karyotypes for chromosomes 21, 18, 13, and X)
`and considered each autosome as a potential denomi-
`nator in a ratio of counts with our chromosomes of
`interest. We selected denominator chromosomes that
`minimized the variation of the chromosome ratios
`within and between sequencing runs. Each chromo-
`
`Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011) 1043
`
`00002
`
`

`

`Table 1. Chromosome ratio calculation rules.
`
`Chromosome
`of interest
`
`Numerator
`(chromosome
`mapped sites)
`
`Denominator
`(chromosome
`mapped sites)
`
`21
`18
`13
`X
`Y
`
`21
`18
`13
`X
`Y
`
`9
`8
`Sum (2–6)
`6
`Sum (2–6)
`
`,
`
`NCVij ⫽
`
`some of interest was determined to have a distinct de-
`nominator (Table 1).
`The full training set was then used to set the
`boundaries for sample classification. The means and
`SDs of chromosome ratios for the unaffected samples
`in the training set were determined. For each sample
`and chromosome of interest, a normalized chromo-
`some value (NCV) was calculated with the equation:
`xij ⫺ ␮ˆ j
`␴ˆ j
`where ␮ˆ j and ␴ˆ j are the estimated training set mean and
`SD, respectively, for the j-th chromosome ratio and xij
`is the observed j-th chromosome ratio for sample i.
`When chromosome ratios are normally distributed,
`the NCV is equivalent to a statistical z score for the
`ratios. No significant departure from linearity was ob-
`served in a quantile– quantile plot of the NCVs from
`unaffected samples. In addition, standard tests of nor-
`mality for the NCVs failed to reject the null hypothesis
`of normality. For both the Kolmogorov–Smirnov and
`Shapiro–Wilk tests, the significance value was ⬎0.05.
`For the test set, an NCV was calculated for each
`chromosome of interest—21, 18, 13, X, and Y—for ev-
`ery sample. To ensure a safe and effective classification
`scheme, we chose conservative boundaries for aneu-
`ploidy classification. For classification of the auto-
`somes’ aneuploidy state, we required an NCV ⬎4.0 to
`classify the chromosome as affected (i.e., aneuploid for
`that chromosome) and an NCV ⬍2.5 to classify a chro-
`mosome as unaffected. Samples with autosomes that
`had an NCV between 2.5 and 4.0 were classified as “no
`call.”
`Sex chromosome classification in the test is per-
`formed in a somewhat more complex fashion— by se-
`quential application of NCVs for both X and Y.
`Specifically:
`1. If the NCV for Y is greater than ⫺2.0 SDs from the
`mean of male samples, then the sample is classified
`as male (XY).
`2. If the NCV for Y is less than ⫺2.0 SDs from the
`mean of male samples and the NCV for X is greater
`
`1044 Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011)
`
`than ⫺2.0 SDs from the mean of female samples,
`then the sample is classified as female (XX).
`3. If the NCV for Y is less than ⫺2.0 SDs from the
`mean of male samples and the NCV for X is less than
`⫺3.0 SDs from the mean of female samples, then the
`sample is classified as monosomy X, i.e., Turner
`syndrome.
`4. If the NCVs do not fit into any of the above 3 crite-
`ria, then the sample is classified as a “no call” for sex.
`
`Results
`
`STUDY POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
`We enrolled 1014 patients between April 2009 and July
`2010. The patient demographic characteristics, the
`type of invasive procedure, and karyotype results are
`summarized in Table 2. The mean age of the study par-
`ticipants was 35.6 years (range, 17– 47 years), and ges-
`tational age ranged from 6 weeks, 1 day to 38 weeks, 1
`day (mean, 15 weeks, 4 days). The observed overall
`incidence of abnormal fetal chromosome karyotypes
`was 6.8%, with a T21 incidence of 2.5%. Of 946 partici-
`pants with singleton pregnancies and a karyotype, 906
`(96%) showed at least 1 clinically recognized risk factor
`for fetal aneuploidy before undergoing the prenatal
`procedure. Even after eliminating the women with ad-
`vanced maternal age as their sole indication, the data
`demonstrate a very high false-positive rate for current
`screening modalities. Ultrasound findings of increased
`nuchal translucency, cystic hygroma, or another struc-
`tural congenital abnormality were most predictive of
`an abnormal karyotype in this cohort.
`The distribution of the diverse ethnic backgrounds
`represented in this study population is also shown in
`Table 2. Overall, the patients were 63% Caucasian, 17%
`Hispanic, 6% Asian, 5% multiethnic, and 4% African
`American. We noted that the ethnic diversity varied
`substantially from site to site. For example, one site
`enrolled 60% Hispanic and 26% Caucasian individu-
`als, whereas 3 other clinics located in the same state
`enrolled no Hispanic participants. As expected, there
`were no discernible differences in our results with re-
`spect to different ethnicities.
`
`TRAINING SET DATA
`The training set study selected 71 samples from the
`initial sequential accumulation of 435 samples that
`were collected between April 2009 and December 2009.
`All participants with affected fetuses (abnormal karyo-
`types) in this first series of participants, as well as a
`random selection of nonaffected individuals with ade-
`quate sample and data, were included for sequencing.
`The clinical characteristics of the patients in the train-
`ing set were consistent with the overall study demo-
`graphics summarized in Table 2. The gestational age
`
`00003
`
`

`

`Optimal Detection of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing
`
`Demographic characteristics
`
`Dates of enrollment
`Patients enrolled, n
`Maternal age
`Mean (SD), years
`Minimum/maximum, years
`Not specified, n
`Ethnicity, n (%)
`Caucasian
`Hispanic
`Asian
`Multiethnic (⬎1)
`African American
`Other
`Native American
`Not specified
`Gestational age, weeks, days
`Mean
`Minimum/maximum
`No. of fetuses, n
`1
`2
`3
`Prenatal procedure, n (%)
`CVS
`Amniocentesis
`Not specified
`Not performed
`Fetal karyotype, n (%)
`46,XX
`46,XY
`47,⫹21 (both sexes)
`47,⫹18 (both sexes)
`47,⫹13 (both sexes)
`45,X
`Complex, other
`Karyotype not available
`Prenatal screening risks for
`karyotyped singletons
`AMAb only (ⱖ35 years)
`Screen positive (trisomy)c
`Increased NT
`Cystic hygroma
`Cardiac defect
`Other congenital abnormality
`Other maternal risk
`None specified
`
`Table 2. Patient demographics.
`
`Total enrolled
`(n ⴝ 1014)
`
`Apr 2009 to Jul 2010
`1014
`
`Training set
`(n ⴝ 71)
`
`Test set
`(n ⴝ 48)
`
`Apr 2009 to Dec 2009
`435
`
`Jan 2010 to Jun 2010
`575
`
`35.6 (5.66)
`17/47
`11
`
`636 (62.7)
`167 (16.5)
`63 (6.2)
`53 (5.2)
`41 (4.0)
`36 (3.6)
`9 (0.9)
`9 (0.9)
`
`15, 4
`6, 1/38, 1
`
`982
`30
`2
`
`430 (42.4)
`571 (56.3)
`3 (0.3)
`10 (1.0)
`
`453a (43.9)
`474a (45.9)
`25a (2.4)
`14 (1.4)
`4 (0.4)
`8 (0.8)
`18a (1.7)
`36 (3.5)
`Nonsequenced
`(n ⴝ 834), n (%)
`445 (53.4)
`149 (17.9)
`35 (4.2)
`12 (1.4)
`14 (1.7)
`78 (9.4)
`64 (7.7)
`37 (4.4)
`
`36.4 (6.05)
`20/46
`3
`
`50 (70.4)
`6 (8.5)
`6 (8.5)
`6 (8.5)
`1 (1.3)
`2 (2.8)
`0 (0.0)
`0 (0.0)
`
`14, 5
`10, 0/23, 1
`
`67
`4
`0
`
`38 (53.5)
`32 (45.1)
`1 (1.4)
`0 (0.0)
`
`22a (29.7)
`26a (35.1)
`10a (13.5)
`5 (6.8)
`2 (2.7)
`3 (4.1)
`6 (8.1)
`0 (0.0)
`Analyzed training set
`(n ⴝ 65), n (%)
`27 (41.5)
`18 (27.7)
`3 (4.6)
`5 (7.7)
`0 (0.0)
`4 (6.2)
`5 (7.7)
`3 (4.6)
`
`34.2 (8.22)
`18/46
`0
`
`24 (50.0)
`13 (27.0)
`5 (10.4)
`1 (2.1)
`3 (6.3)
`1 (2.1)
`1 (2.1)
`0 (0.0)
`
`15, 3
`10, 4/28, 3
`
`47
`1
`0
`
`28 (58.3)
`20 (41.7)
`0 (0.0)
`0 (0.0)
`
`7a (14.6)
`14 (29.2)
`13 (27.1)
`8 (16.7)
`1 (2.1)
`3 (6.3)
`2 (4.2)
`0 (0.0)
`Analyzed test set
`(n ⴝ 47), n (%)
`21 (44.7)
`9 (19.1)
`5 (10.6)
`4 (8.5)
`4 (8.5)
`3 (6.4)
`1 (2.1)
`0 (0.0)
`
`a Includes results of fetuses from multiple gestations.
`b AMA, advanced maternal age; NT, nuchal translucency.
`c Assessed and reported by clinicians.
`
`Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011) 1045
`
`00004
`
`

`

`for the samples in the training set ranged from 10
`weeks, 0 days to 23 weeks, 1 day. Thirty-eight patients
`underwent CVS, 32 underwent amniocentesis, and 1
`patient did not have the type of invasive procedure
`specified (an unaffected karyotype, 46,XY). The pa-
`tients were 70% Caucasian, 8.5% Hispanic, 8.5%
`Asian, and 8.5% multiethnic. Six sequenced samples
`were removed from this set for the purposes of
`training— 4 samples from individuals with twin gesta-
`tions (further discussed below), 1 sample with T18 that
`was contaminated during preparation, and 1 sample
`with fetal karyotype 69,XXX—leaving 65 samples for
`the training set.
`The number of unique sequence sites (i.e., tags
`identified with unique sites in the genome) increased
`from 2.2 ⫻ 106 in the early phases of the training set
`study to 13.7 ⫻ 106 in the latter phases because of im-
`provements in the sequencing technology over this pe-
`riod. To monitor for any potential shifts in the chro-
`mosome ratios over this 6-fold range in unique sites,
`we ran different unaffected samples at the beginning
`and the end of the study. For the first run of 15 unaf-
`fected samples, the mean number of unique sites was
`3.8 ⫻ 106, and the mean chromosome ratios for chro-
`mosomes 21 and 18 were 0.314 and 0.528, respectively.
`For the last run of 15 unaffected samples, the mean
`number of unique sites was 10.7 ⫻ 106, and the mean
`chromosome ratios for chromosomes 21 and 18 were
`0.316 and 0.529, respectively. There was no statistically
`significant difference in the chromosome ratios over
`the time of the training set study for chromosome 21 or
`for chromosome 18.
`The training set NCVs for chromosomes 21, 18,
`and 13 are shown in Fig. 1. These results are consistent
`with an assumption of normality, in that approxi-
`mately 99% of the diploid NCVs fall within ⫾2.5 SDs
`of the mean. Of this set of 65 samples, 8 samples with
`clinical karyotypes indicating T21 had NCVs between 6
`and 20. Four samples with clinical karyotypes indica-
`tive of fetal T18 had NCVs between 3.3 and 12, and the
`2 samples with karyotypes indicative of fetal trisomy 13
`(T13) had NCVs of 2.6 and 4. The spread in the NCVs
`in affected samples is due to their dependence on the
`percentage of fetal cfDNA in the individual samples.
`Similarly to the autosomes, the means and SDs for
`the sex chromosomes were established in the training
`set. The sex chromosome thresholds allowed 100% of
`the male and female fetuses in the training set to be
`identified.
`
`TEST SET DATA
`Having established chromosome ratio means and SDs
`from the training set, we selected a test set of 48 samples
`from 575 samples collected between January 2010 and
`June 2010. One of the samples from a twin gestation
`
`1046 Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011)
`
`Fig. 1. NCVs for the 65 samples in the training set.
`The last 8 samples in the chromosome 21 data set (NCVs
`6 –20) have T21 karyotypes. The last 4 samples in the
`chromosome 18 data set (NCVs 3.3–12) have T18 karyo-
`types. The last 2 samples in the chromosome 13 data set
`(NCVs 2.6 and 4) have T13 karyotypes.
`
`was removed from the final analysis, leaving 47 samples
`in the test set. The personnel preparing samples for
`sequencing and operating the equipment were blinded
`to the clinical karyotype information. The range of ges-
`tational ages was similar to that of the training set (Ta-
`ble 2). Fifty-eight percent of the invasive procedures
`were CVS, higher than the percentage of the overall
`procedural demographics, but similar to that of the
`training set. The participants were 50% Caucasian,
`27% Hispanic, 10.4% Asian, and 6.3% African
`American.
`In the test set, the number of unique sequence tags
`varied from approximately 13 ⫻ 106 to 26 ⫻ 106. For
`unaffected samples, the chromosome ratios for chro-
`mosomes 21 and 18 were 0.313 and 0.527, respectively.
`The test set NCVs for chromosomes 21, 18, and 13
`are shown in Fig. 2, and the classifications are given
`in Table 3. In the test set, 13 of 13 individuals with
`clinical karyotypes indicating fetal T21 were cor-
`rectly identified, with NCVs between 5 and 14. All 8
`individuals with karyotypes indicating fetal T18
`were correctly identified, with NCVs between 8.5
`and 22. The single sample with a karyotype classified
`as T13 in this test set was classified as a “no call,” with
`an NCV of approximately 3.
`For the test data set, all male samples were cor-
`rectly identified [including a sample with complex
`karyotype, 46,XY plus a marker chromosome (uniden-
`tifiable by cytogenetics); Table 3]. Nineteen of 20 fe-
`male samples were correctly identified; 1 female sample
`was categorized as a “no call.” Two of 3 samples in the
`test set with a karyotype of 45,X were correctly identi-
`fied as monosomy X. The third sample was classified as
`a “no call” (Table 3).
`
`00005
`
`

`

`Optimal Detection of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing
`
`Fig. 2. NCVs for the 47 samples in the test set.
`The last 13 samples in the chromosome 21 data (NCVs
`5–14) and the last 8 samples in the chromosome 18 data
`(NCVs 8.5–22) were correctly classified as T21 and T18,
`respectively. The last sample in the chromosome 13 data
`set (NCV of approximately 3) was classified as a “no
`call.”
`
`TWINS
`Although the method is currently envisioned for use
`with singleton pregnancies, 4 of the samples initially
`selected for the training set and 1 of the samples in the
`test set were from twin gestations. The thresholds we
`are using could be confounded by the different
`amounts of cfDNA expected in the setting of a twin
`gestation. In the training set, the karyotype from one of
`the twin samples was monochorionic 47,XY,⫹21. A
`second twin sample was fraternal, and amniocentesis
`was carried out on each of the fetuses. One of these
`fetuses had a karyotype of 47,XY,⫹21, whereas the
`other had a normal karyotype, 46,XX. In both of these
`cases, the cell-free classification based on the methods
`discussed above classified the sample as T21. The other
`2 twin gestations in the training set were classified cor-
`rectly as nonaffected for T21 (all twins showed a dip-
`loid karyotype for chromosome 21). For the twin ges-
`tation sample in the test set, a karyotype was established
`only for twin B (46,XX); the algorithm correctly classi-
`fied this patient as nonaffected for T21.
`
`Discussion
`
`In this study, we have optimized the power of massively
`parallel sequencing for detecting multiple abnormal fe-
`tal karyotypes from the blood of pregnant women. To
`our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate
`100% correct classification of samples with trisomy 21
`and trisomy 18 with an independent set of test data.
`Even in the case of fetuses with abnormal sex chromo-
`some karyotypes, no sample was incorrectly classified
`
`Table 3. Test set classification data.
`
`T21 classification
`
`Classification
`
`Karyotype
`
`Unaffected, n
`
`T21, n
`
`No call, n
`
`Diploid Chr 21a
`47, XX, or XY,⫹21
`
`34
`
`13
`
`T18 classification
`
`Classification
`
`Karyotype
`
`Unaffected, n
`
`T18, n
`
`No call, n
`
`Diploid Chr 18
`47, XX, or XY,⫹18
`
`39
`
`8
`
`T13 classification
`
`Classification
`
`Karyotype
`
`Unaffected, n
`
`T13, n
`
`No call, n
`
`Diploid Chr 13
`47,XY,⫹13
`
`46
`
`1
`
`Sex chromosome classification
`
`Classification
`
`Karyotype
`
`XY, n
`
`XX, n
`
`MX, n
`
`No call, n
`
`XY
`XX
`45,X
`Complex, other
`
`23
`
`1
`
`18
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`1
`
`a Chr 21, chromosome 21; MX, monosomy in the X chromosome with no
`evidence of Y chromosome.
`
`with our algorithm. Importantly, the algorithm also
`performed well in detecting the presence of T21 in 2
`sets of twin pregnancies with at least 1 affected fetus, a
`result that has not previously been reported. Further-
`more, our study examined a variety of sequential sam-
`ples from multiple centers that not only represented
`the range of abnormal karyotypes one is likely to wit-
`ness in a commercial clinical setting but also demon-
`strated the importance of accurately classifying preg-
`nancies unaffected by common trisomies to address
`the unacceptably high false-positive rates that occur in
`prenatal screening today. The data provide valuable in-
`sight into the vast potential of this method for use in the
`future.
`An analysis of subsets of the unique genomic sites
`showed increases in the variance consistent with Pois-
`son counting statistics. Our work builds on the findings
`
`Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011) 1047
`
`00006
`
`

`

`of Fan and Quake, who demonstrated that the sensitiv-
`ity of noninvasive prenatal detection of fetal aneu-
`ploidy from maternal plasma via massively parallel se-
`quencing is limited only by the counting statistics (7 ).
`Because we are collecting information across the entire
`genome, this method is capable of detecting any aneu-
`ploidy or other copy number variation including inser-
`tions and deletions. The karyotype for one our samples
`had a small deletion in chromosome 11 between q21
`and q23 that we observed as an approximately 10%
`decrease in the relative number of tags in a 25-Mb re-
`gion starting at q21 when we analyzed the sequencing
`data in 500-kb bins. In addition, 3 of the samples in the
`training set had complex sex karyotypes that the cyto-
`genetic analysis revealed to be due to mosaicism. These
`karyotypes were: (a) 47,XXX[9]/45,X[6], (b) 45,X[3]/
`46,XY[17], and (c) 47,XXX[13]/45,X[7]. Sample b,
`which showed some XY-containing cells, was correctly
`classified as XY. Samples a (from a CVS procedure) and
`c (from amniocentesis), which a cytogenetic analysis
`revealed both to be a mixture of XXX and X cells (con-
`sistent with mosaic Turner syndrome), were classified
`as a “no call” and monosomy X, respectively. Further
`work is warranted to compare the results obtained
`from sequencing data—not only to cytogenetic results
`obtained via invasive prenatal procedures (particularly
`CVS, which can reveal confined placental mosaicism)
`but also to birth outcomes—to better understand test
`performance in the setting of such complex cases.
`In testing our algorithm, we observed another in-
`teresting result for one of the samples from our test set,
`which had an NCV between ⫺5 and ⫺6 for chromo-
`some 21 (Fig. 2). Although cytogenetic analysis re-
`vealed this sample to be diploid for chromosome 21,
`the karyotype showed mosaicism, with triploidy for
`chromosome 9: 47,XX,⫹9[9]/46,XX[6]. Because chro-
`mosome 9 is used in the denominator of our algorithm
`for determining the chromosome 21 ratio (Table 1),
`that mosaicism lowered the overall NCV value. This
`result strikingly demonstrates the ability of this algo-
`rithm to detect fetal trisomy 9 in this case. In subse-
`quent studies, which we are now conducting, we are
`using multiple chromosome ratios to ensure correct
`classification for the chromosomes of interest. In addi-
`tion, we are establishing normalizing chromosomes for
`all of the autosomes to increase the probability of de-
`tecting rare aneuploidies across the genome.
`The conclusion of Fan et al. regarding the sensitiv-
`ity of these methods is correct only if the algorithms
`being used are able to account for any random or sys-
`tematic biases introduced by the sequencing method. If
`the sequencing data are not properly normalized, the
`resulting analysis will be inferior to the counting statis-
`tics. Chiu et al. noted in their recent report that their
`measurement of chromosomes 18 and 13 with the mas-
`
`1048 Clinical Chemistry 57:7 (2011)
`
`Fig. 3. NCVs for the 47 samples in the test set for
`chromosomes 21 and 18 by using the normalization
`procedure of Chiu et al.
`The last 13 samples in the chromosome 21 data set have
`T21 clinical karyotypes; 10 of the 13 samples were classi-
`fied as T21. The last 8 samples in the chromosome 18 data
`set have T18 clinical karyotypes; 5 of 8 samples were
`classified as T18.
`
`sively parallel sequencing method was imprecise and
`concluded that more research was necessary in order to
`apply the method to the determination of T18 and T13
`(8 ). The method described by Chiu et al. simply uses
`the number of sequence tags on the chromosome of
`interest—in their case chromosome 21—normalized
`by the total number of tags in the sequencing run. The
`challenge for this approach is that the distribution of
`tags on each chromosome can vary from sequencing
`run to sequencing run, and this variation thus can in-
`crease the overall variation of the aneuploidy-detection
`metric. To compare the results obtained with the Chiu
`algorithm to the chromosome ratios we describe in this
`report, we reanalyzed our set of test data for chromo-
`somes 21 and 18 with the method recommended by
`Chiu et al. (Fig. 3). Overall, we observed a compression
`in the range of NCVs for chromosomes 21 and 18 sep-
`arately, as well as a decrease in the detection rate, with
`10 of 13 T21 samples and 5 of 8 of T18 samples cor-
`rectly identified from our test set with an NCV thresh-
`old of 4.0 for aneuploidy classification.
`Ehrich et al. also focused only on T21 and used the
`same algorithm as Chiu et al. (9 ). After observing a
`shift in their test set z-score metric from the external
`reference data (training set), they retrained on the test
`set to establish the classification boundaries. Al-
`though this approach is feasible in principle, in prac-
`tice it would be challenging to decide how many
`samples would be required for training and how of-
`ten one would need to retrain to ensure that the
`classification boundaries were correct. One method
`
`00007
`
`

`

`Optimal Detection of Fetal Aneuploidy by Sequencing
`
`of mitigating this issue is to include in every se-
`quencing run controls that measure the baseline and
`calibrate for quantitative behavior. We are currently
`developing such controls and are incorporating
`them into our future clinical studies.
`In conclusion, we have shown that massively par-
`allel sequencing is capable of detecting multiple fetal
`chromosomal abnormalities from the plasma of preg-
`nant women when the algorithm for normalizing the
`chromosome-counting data is optimized. Our algo-
`rithms for quantification not only minimize random
`and systematic variation between sequencing runs but
`also allow for effective classification of aneuploidies
`across the entire genome, most notably T21 and T18.
`Larger sample collections are required to further test
`the algorithm for T13 detection. To this end, we are
`currently conducting a prospective, blinded, multisite
`clinical study to further demonstrate the diagnostic ac-
`curacy of our methods and to validate the conclusions
`presented in this report.
`
`Author Contributions: All authors confirmed they have contributed to
`the intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 re-
`quirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design,
`acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting
`or revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval of
`the published article.
`
`Authors’ Disclosures or Potential Conflicts of Interest: Upon man-
`uscript submission, all authors completed the Disclosures of Potential
`Conflict of Interest form. Potential conflicts of interest:
`
`Employment or Leadership: A.J. Sehnert, Verinata Health; B.K.
`Rhees, Verinata Health; D. Comstock, Verinata Health; E. de Feo,
`Verinata Health; G. Heilek, Verinata Health; J. Burke, Verinata
`Health; R.P. Rava, Verinata Health.
`Consultant or Advisory Role: J. Burke, Verinata Health.
`Stock Ownership: D. Comstock, Verinata Health; G. Heilek, Amgen,
`Verinata Health, and Roche; R.P. Rava, Verinata Health.
`Honoraria: None declared.
`Research Funding: None declared.
`Expert Testimony: None declared.
`
`Role of Sponsor: The funding organizations played a direct role in
`the design of the study, the choice of enrolled patients, the review and
`interpretation of data, and the preparation and final approval of the
`manuscript.
`
`Acknowledgments: We thank the pregnant women who enrolled
`in this study, without whom this research could not have been
`conducted. We also thank the following members of the Verinata
`Health research team who processed samples and generated the
`data: Neha Agarwal, Manjula Chinnappa, Gail Chinno

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket