Accuracy and depth evaluation of clinical low pass genome sequencing in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and CNVs.

Background: Low-pass genome sequencing (LP GS) has shown distinct advantages over traditional methods for the detection of mosaicism. However, no study has systematically evaluated the accuracy of LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and copy number variants (CNVs) in prenatal diagnosis. Moreover, the influence of sequencing depth on mosaicism detection of LP GS has not been fully evaluated.

Methods: To evaluate the accuracy of LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and mosaic CNVs, 27 samples with known aneuploidies and CNVs and 1 negative female sample were used to generate 6 simulated samples and 21 virtual samples, each sample contained 9 different mosaic levels. Mosaic levels were simulated by pooling reads or DNA from each positive sample and the negative sample according to a series of percentages (ranging from 3 to 40%). Then, the influence of sequencing depth on LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and CNVs was evaluated by downsampling.

Results: To evaluate the accuracy of LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and CNVs, a comparative analysis of mosaic levels was performed using 6 simulated samples and 21 virtual samples with 35 M million (M) uniquely aligned high-quality reads (UAHRs). For mosaic levels > 30%, the average difference (detected mosaic levels vs. theoretical mosaic levels) of 6 mosaic CNVs in simulated samples was 4.0%, and the average difference (detected mosaic levels vs. mosaic levels of Y chromosome) of 6 mosaic aneuploidies and 15 mosaic CNVs in virtual samples was 2.7%. Furthermore, LP GS had a higher detection rate and accuracy for the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and CNVs of larger sizes, especially mosaic aneuploidies. For depth evaluation, the results of LP GS in downsampling samples were compared with those of LP GS using 35 M UAHRs. The detection sensitivity of LP GS for 6 mosaic aneuploidies and 15 mosaic CNVs in virtual samples increased with UAHR. For mosaic levels > 30%, the total detection sensitivity reached a plateau at 30 M UAHRs. With 30 M UAHRs, the total detection sensitivity was 99.2% for virtual samples.

Conclusions: We demonstrated the accuracy of LP GS in mosaicism detection using simulated data and virtual samples, respectively. Thirty M UAHRs (single-end 35 bp) were optimal for LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and most mosaic CNVs larger than 1.48 Mb (Megabases) with mosaic levels > 30%. These results could provide a reference for laboratories that perform clinical LP GS in the detection of mosaic aneuploidies and CNVs.