A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä

External quality assessment of SARS-CoV-2-sequencing: An ESGMD-SSM pilot trial across 15 European laboratories




TekijätWegner Fanny, Roloff Tim, Huber Michael, Cordey Samuel, Ramette Alban, Gerth Yannick, Bertelli Claire, Stange Madlen, Seth-Smith Helena MB, Mari Alfredo, Leuzinger Karoline, Cerutti Lorenzo, Harshman Keith, Xenarios Ioannis, Le Mercier Philippe, Bittel Pascal, Neuenschwander Stefan, Opota Onya, Fuchs Jonas, Panning Marcus, Michel Charlotte, Hallin Marie, Demuyser Thomas, De Mendonca Ricardo, Savelkoul Paul, Dingemans Jozef, van der Veer Brian, Boers Stefan A, Claas Eric CJ, Coolen Jordy PM, Melchers Willem JG, Gunell Marianne, Kallonen Teemu, Vuorinen Tytti, Hakanen Antti J, Bernhoff Eva, Hetland Marit Andrea Klokkhammer, Berman Hadar Golan, Adar Sheera, Moran-Gilad Jacob, Wolf Dana G, Leib Stephen L, Nolte Oliver, Kaiser Laurent, Schmutz Stefan, Kufner Verena, Zaheri Maryam, Trkola Alexandra, Aamot Hege V, Hirsch Hans H, Greub Gilbert, Egli Adrian

KustantajaAmerican Society for Microbiology

Julkaisuvuosi2022

JournalJournal of Clinical Microbiology

Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimiJournal of clinical microbiology

Lehden akronyymiJ Clin Microbiol

Vuosikerta60

Numero1

ISSN0095-1137

eISSN1098-660X

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01698-21

Rinnakkaistallenteen osoitehttps://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/67808997


Tiivistelmä

Objective: This first pilot on external quality assessment (EQA) of SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing, initiated by the ESCMID Study Group for Genomic and Molecular Diagnostics (ESGMD) and Swiss Society for Microbiology (SSM), aims to build a framework between laboratories in order to improve pathogen surveillance sequencing.

Methods: Ten samples with varying viral loads were sent out to 15 clinical laboratories who had free choice of sequencing methods and bioinformatic analyses. The key aspects on which the individual centres were compared on were identification of 1) SNPs and indels, 2) Pango lineages, and 3) clusters between samples.

Results: The participating laboratories used a wide array of methods and analysis pipelines. Most were able to generate whole genomes for all samples. Genomes were sequenced to varying depth (up to 100-fold difference across centres). There was a very good consensus regarding the majority of reporting criteria, but there were a few discrepancies in lineage and cluster assignment. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in variant calling. The main reasons for discrepancies were missing data, bioinformatic choices, and interpretation of data.

Conclusions: The pilot EQA was an overall success. It was able to show the high quality of participating labs and provide valuable feedback in cases where problems occurred, thereby improving the sequencing setup of laboratories. A larger follow-up EQA should, however, improve on defining the variables and format of the report. Additionally, contamination and/or minority variants should be a further aspect of assessment.


Ladattava julkaisu

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.





Last updated on 2024-26-11 at 17:17