Identification of Somatic Structural Variants in Solid Tumors By Optical Genome Mapping

Ultra-High Molecular Weight gDNA Isolation from Solid Tissue

(Figure 1). A 10mg section of frozen tissue was sliced from its parent piece on a sterilized aluminum block over dry ice. The tissue was minced briefly into 1-2mm pieces with a scalpel, and placed into a 15ml conical tube containing 2ml of chilled Bionano Prep SP Animal Tissue Homogenization Buffer (HB) on ice. The tube was then placed in a beaker of ice for effective cooling of the sample during subsequent blending procedure. The tissue was blended at full speed for 10 seconds using the Tissueruptor II (Qiagen). Following tissue disruption, 6ml of additional chilled HB was added to the sample, and the resultant 8ml was filtered through a 40µm nylon cell filter within a 50ml conical tube.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Workflow for Isolation of High Molecular Weight DNA from Solid Tumors.

See text for detailed description of the workflow.

Homogenate was transferred to a new 15ml tube, inverted, centrifuged at 2000g for 5 minutes at 4°C using a swinging bucket rotor, and decanted. The cell pellet was then resuspended in 300μl of Wash Buffer A (Bionano) and transferred to a 1.5ml Protein LoBind tube. 700μl additional Wash Buffer A was added to the 15ml tube, pipette mixed, and transferred to the same 1.5ml tube, followed by centrifuge at 2000g for 5 minutes at 4°C. The supernatant was then decanted and the pellet was resuspended in residual volume. 50μl Proteinase K (Bionano) was added to the sample and incubated at room temperature for 3 minutes. 225μl Buffer Lysis and Binding Buffer (LBB, Bionano) was then added, and samples were inverted 15 times to mix. After HulaMixer rotation at 10rpm for 15 minutes at room temperature, 10μl of 100mM Phenylmethylsulfonyl Fluoride Solution (PMSF, Sigma-Aldrich) was added to inactivate Proteinase K, followed by 85μl of Salting Buffer (SB, Bionano).

A single 4mm paramagnetic Nanobind Disc (Bionano) was transferred to the lysate, in addition to 400μl 100% isopropanol. Binding of gDNA to the disc was facilitated by HulaMixer rotation for 15 minutes at room temperature at 10 RPM. Samples were then placed into a clear Dynamag tube rack for quick inversions to further increase gDNA binding. The rack was then inverted and joined to the Dynamag magnetic base. The apparatus was slowly brought upright to allow the disc to adhere to the magnet. The supernatant was removed and 700μl Wash Buffer 1 (Bionano) was dispensed onto the disc, followed by four inversions of the clear rack for washing. This washing step was performed twice and followed by two washes of 500μl Wash Buffer 2 (Bionano). After final decanting, the disc was transferred to a new 1.5 ml Protein LoBind tube using the Magnetic Retriever (Bionano). Elution Buffer (65μl, Bionano) was added and the sample was incubated for 20 minutes at room temperature. gDNA was then transferred to a 2.0ml microfuge tube. The previous tube containing the disc was spun on a benchtop microcentrifuge for 5 seconds and the residual eluate transferred to the 2.0 ml tube. The gDNA was slowly pipetted to homogenize and then rotated via HulaMixer at room temperature for 1 hour at 15 RPM. The sample was then pulse spun and allowed to equilibrate overnight at room temperature.

Ultra-High Molecular Weight gDNA Isolation from Blood

A 650μl aliquot of frozen blood was thawed to room temperature. The sample was inverted 10 times to mix and then pulse spun. 20μl was dispensed onto a Hemocue cuvette and cell density was measured. The amount of blood necessary to obtain 1.5 × 10⁶ cells was calculated (typically 200-600μl). Sample was again inverted 10 times and briefly pulse spun before the calculated volume was transferred to a 1.5ml Protein LoBind tube.

The resultant blood aliquot was spun for 2 minutes at 2,200 x g at room temperature to obtain a WBC pellet. After removing the supernatant, 40μl Stabilizing Buffer and 50μl Proteinase K (Bionano) were added the WBC pellet. After resuspension, the sample was incubated at room temperature for 3 minutes. 225μl Buffer LBB (Bionano) was added to the sample and mixed by inversion fifteen times. The sample was pulse spun and 10μl of 100mM PMSF (Sigma-Aldrich) was added to the sample, followed by capping and inversion five times and a brief pulse spin. The sample was incubated at room temperature for 10 minutes. Isolation of DNA was then performed essentially as described above for tumor tissue.

Direct Label and Staining (DLS)

750ng of gDNA, determined by Broad Range dsDNA Qubit Assay, was mixed with Direct Label Enzyme-1 (DLE-1) Buffer (Bionano Genomics, Part#20350), DL-Green (Bionano Genomics, Part#20352), and DLE-1 Enzyme (Bionano Genomics, Part#20351) and incubated for 2 hours at 37°C in a thermocycler. 5µl of Proteinase K solution was then added to the reaction and incubated for 30 minutes at 50°C. During Proteinase K digestion, a DLS membrane (Bionano Genomics, Part#20358) was placed hydrated with 25μL of DLE-1 buffer in one well of a DLS-microplate (Bionano Genomics, Part#20357). The labeled DNA was transferred onto this membrane, incubated at room temperature for one hour, transferred onto another membrane with 25μL DLE-1 buffer and incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature. Sample exposure to light was avoided during these steps. Following this drop dialysis cleanup, 5x DTT (Bionano Genomics, Part#20354), Flow Buffer (Bionano Genomics, Part#20353), DNA stain (Bionano Genomics, Part#20356), and nuclease free water were added to the DNA in a 2ml amber tube and the tube was mixed in a hula mixer at 5rpm for 2 hours at room temperature. The sample was then spun down and stored overnight at room temperature protected from light. The DNA concentration of each labeled sample was confirmed within 4-12 ng/µl by High Sensitivity dsDNA Qubit Assay and then loaded onto a Bionano Saphyr® Chip (Bionano Genomics, Part#20319) and run on the Bionano Saphyr® instrument, targeting approximately 300x human genome coverage.

DNA quality metrics

All 20 solid tumors yielded high molecular weight gDNA (Table 2). The average concentration across all samples following gDNA isolation was 120 ng/µl by Broad Range dsDNA Qubit Assay. All eluted gDNA were well above the minimal concentration required for DLS labeling (35ng/µl) and the average final DNA yields for each tumor ranged from 1.2-16.4µg/10mg input tissue. Analysis on a Saphyr instrument following DLS labeling revealed that samples achieved an average label density of 14.4/100Kbp, average filtered N50 (>20kbp) DNA size of 242Kbp, average filtered N50 (>150kbp) DNA size of 315Kbp, map rate of 82.62%, effective reference coverage of 320x and average effective DNA throughput (≥150Kbp) of 50Gbp/scan. Rare Variant Pipeline Analysis of the samples yielded an average of 82.4% of molecules aligning to the reference genome. These values are all well above the acceptable range for obtaining high quality data and none of the samples failed any of these quality control metrics.

Identification of somatic structural variants

Rare Variant analysis of the samples revealed a large numbers of variants in each sample, only a fraction of which were likely somatic (Figure 2). The unfiltered analysis yielded an average of 1633 total SVs per sample (range 1241-2000), which include both somatic and germline polymorphic variants. These consisted predominantly of insertions and deletions, with an average of 712 insertions and 604 deletions, a fewer number of inversion (an average of 153) and duplications (an average of 123), and relatively few translocations (an average of 41). Eliminating those SVs found in Bionano’s control database of known polymorphic SVs reduced the number of putative somatic structural mutations by 91% to an average of 124 total SVs per sample (Figure 2). Most of the variants eliminated were insertions and deletions, of which on average 97% and 94%, respectively, were removed. On the other hand, less than 0.2% of the translocations were flagged as polymorphic, consistent with the fact that almost no translocations persist in the population as polymorphism.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Total and Somatic Structural Variants Present in Tumor Samples.

Upper panel: SV counts as determined using the Bionano Rare Variant pipeline, before control database filtration. SV counts are averages for duplicate and triplicate samples. Lower panel: SV counts after filtering total SVs to remove known polymorphic SV found in Bionano’s GRCh38 control database. SV counts are averages for duplicate and triplicate samples.

To determine the efficacy of identifying somatic SVs by filtering against Bionano’s database of known polymorphisms, we used as a gold standard the blood samples from four patients from whom we had obtained tongue tumors. That is, we determined the true somatic mutations in each of these four tumors by eliminating those SVs identified in each of the tumors that were also present in the corresponding blood sample. We could then compare those true somatic variants to the list of somatic variants predicted by filtering against the database of polymorphisms. For these four tongue tumor samples, we identified an average of 1474 total SVs per sample. Filtering these SVs using the Rare Variant Analysis pipeline for SVs not found in the Bionano control database yielded an average of 72 total SVs per sample, consisting of 11 insertions (range 9-15), 31 deletions (range 11-47), 3 inversions (range 1-6), 14 duplications (range 2-23), and 14 translocations (6-19). Filtering against the variants found in the corresponding blood samples returned an average of 58 total SVs per sample, consisting of 10 insertions (range 9-10), 20 deletions (range 7-35), 2 inversions (range 0-4), 13 duplications (range 4-24), and 14 translocations (range 6-19) (Figure 3, upper panel).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Efficacy of the Somatic Variant Identification Using a Control Database of Known Polymorphisms.

Upper Panel: Number and distribution of somatic structural variant in four tongue tumors as determined by filtering against SVs in the patient’s genome from peripheral blood (left) or against Bionano’s control database of known polymorphisms.

Lower Panel: Values for sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for identification of somatic structural variants obtained by filtering total identified SVs to remove those present in a control database of know human polymorphisms. Data obtained by this filtering method were compared to those obtained by filtering the total SVs to remove those present in the genomes obtained from peripheral blood from the each of the patients from whom the tumors were removed.

Comparing the residual SV sets obtained by filtering against Bionano’s control database to the sets of true somatic SVs for each sample demonstrated that the control database filtration exhibited strong statistical accuracy (Figure 3, lower panel). Across the four separate samples, the control database exhibited an average sensitivity of 92% (83-96%) and specificity of 98% (range 97-99%). That is, filtering with the control database retained most of the true somatic mutations while eliminating almost all of the polymorphic SVs. Similarly, the average negative predictive value of the filter was 99.6%, demonstrating that an SV identified as germline was indeed a germline variant, while the positive predictive value of 74% (range 60-81%) indicates that a majority, but not all, the variants identified as somatic are in fact somatic. The SVs inaccurately identified as somatic were rare germline variants, predominantly insertions or deletions, essentially private to the patient’s genome. As above, we noted that the filtering process did not affect all SV types equally: while most deletions and insertions were flagged as polymorphic and eliminated from the list of somatic mutations, very few duplications and essentially no translocations were identified as polymorphic. This is consistent with observation that few translocations or duplications are stable through meiosis.

The number and types of somatic variants in a tumor varied substantially across the collection of samples (Figure 4). Several tumor samples, including those from colon, bladder, kidney and all four from thyroid, contained relatively few somatic SVs whereas others, including those from prostate, ovaries, lung and brain, carried a large number of somatic SVs. Since these samples for the most part serve as single representatives of each tumor type, we cannot extrapolate to the tumor types as a whole the contribution of SVs to cancer onset and development for each class of tumor. However, it is noteworthy that the SNV mutational burden in thyroid cancers is among the lowest among all tumor types and that measure of genome instability is mirrored in the low number of somatic SVs in all four of the samples examined [38]. Similarly, the SNV mutational burden in lung cancers is among the highest across all tumor types and both of the lung tumors examined here also carry a high level of somatic SV.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Global View of Structural Variants in Solid Tumor Samples

Diagrams of somatic structural variants in all the solid tumor genomes, filtered to remove known polymorphisms, showing translocations and inversions in the center, copy number on the inner ring and insertions (green), deletions (orange) inversions (light blue) and duplications (violet) on the next to most outer ring. Chromosomes are ordered sequentially in the outer ring on which are indicated cytological banding patterns and the centromere (red bar).

Duplicate Sample Analysis

We compared SV calls from separate isolates of the same sample to assess consistency and reproducibility of the method, albeit without knowing the extent of tumor heterogeneity of the individual samples. Six samples underwent triplicate analysis, and four samples underwent duplicate analysis (Table 2). After identifying SVs using the Rare Variant Analysis pipeline and filtering them against the Bionano control database of known polymorphisms, we recovered an average of 116 somatic SVs shared among the separate isolates of the same tumor. These comprised on average of 23 insertions, 29 deletions, 10 inversions, 11 duplications and 43 translocations (Table 3). As noted above, the number of SVs identified in a tumor varied widely across the different tumors examined, with lung, breast, brain and ovarian tumors showing a high level of somatic SVs while the others containing a relative low number of SVs. Moreover, the percentage of SVs shared among different isolates of the same tumor also varied among the different tumor types. However, the percentage of shared SVs and the total number of SVs were uncorrelated. Assuming that the higher values for shared SVs reflect the reproducibility of the method, then we might postulate that the lower shared values represent both the reproducibility and the tumor heterogeneity. This would suggest that these brain, liver, lung and prostate tumors had a relatively high level of tumor heterogeneity.

Identification of cancer gene mutations

While as noted above we cannot generalize regarding the role of structural variants in onset and progression of different tumor types, our results indicate that we can extract from the structural variant list clinically relevant data on individual tumors that might inform prognosis or treatment options. We examined the somatic structural variants in each tumor sample for those that affected genes previously associated with cancer. In particular, we annotated those genes altered by a structural variant, either by disruption, duplication, deletion or fusion, and intersected that list with the set of cancer-related genes in the Cosmic database (v92) [37]. The resultant list by tumor type is provided in Table 4 and subdivided into oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes and gene fusions. We included only those oncogenes that were potentially activated by duplication or gene fusion and only those tumor suppressor genes that were potentially inactivated by deletion, insertion or fusion. As evident, every tumor sample carried at least one such cancer gene mutation and most contained multiple hits. Several of these genes offer the opportunity for targeted therapies, focused either directly on the oncogene, as would be the case for CDK6 and ERBB2, or at the pathway downstream of the affected gene, as would be the case for BRAF and CDKN2A. Other affected genes, such as MSH2, RAD51B, RAD21 and RAD18, suggest that the potential of therapy based on possible ensuing genome instability, such as immunotherapy or PARP inhibitors. Many of these variants would not be readily identified by targeted gene panels generally used for clinical assessment of tumor genomes. Thus, the identification of somatic structural variants by OGM could provide useful clinical insights not readily available through standard next generation sequencing.

In addition to identifying individual cancer related genes in tumor types, our results provide a panoramic view of the entire tumor genome and reveal large scale genomic features not readily available from standard sequencing techniques. As evident in the results in Figure 4, our data provide a rapid snapshot of the extent of genomic instability in each of the tumors. Such images present an integrated picture of the aneuploidies, translocations, inversions, deletions and insertions, which offers a readily digestible impression of the extent of genetic instability underlying a tumor. Moreover, several large-scale features are evident in these data. For instance, Figure 5 details a chromothrypsis event on a portion of chromosome 5 in one of the lung tumor samples. The detection and mapping of such a feature are difficult to achieve by short read sequencing but can indicate poor prognosis and the corresponding need for aggressive therapy.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5. Chromothrypsis of Chromosome 5p in a Lung Tumor

Shown is a truncated Circos plot of the lung tumor, focused on the region of chromosome 5, highlighting the chromothrypsis event that occurred on its p arm. The organization of the circos plot is as indicated in the legend to Figure 4.