Noninvasive Prenatal Testing: Comparison of Two Mappers and Influence in the Diagnostic Yield

Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jun 7:2018:9498140. doi: 10.1155/2018/9498140. eCollection 2018.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine if the use of different mappers for NIPT may vary the results considerably.

Methods: Peripheral blood was collected from 217 pregnant women, 58 pathological (34 pregnancies with trisomy 21, 18 with trisomy 18, and 6 with trisomy 13) and 159 euploid. MPS was performed following a manufacturer's modified protocol of semiconductor sequencing. Obtained reads were mapped with two different software programs: TMAP and HPG-Aligner, comparing the results.

Results: Using TMAP, 57 pathological samples were correctly detected (sensitivity 98.28%, specificity 93.08%): 33 samples as trisomy 21 (sensitivity 97.06%, specificity 99.45%), 16 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 88.89%, specificity 93.97%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 100%). 11 false positives, 1 false negative, and 2 samples incorrectly identified were obtained. Using HPG-Aligner, all the 58 pathological samples were correctly identified (sensibility 100%, specificity 96.86%): 34 as trisomy 21 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.91%), 18 as trisomy 18 (sensibility 100%, specificity 98.99%), and 6 as trisomy 13 (sensibility 100%, specificity 99.53%). 5 false positives were obtained.

Conclusion: Different mappers use slightly different algorithms, so the use of one mapper or another with the same batch file can provide different results.

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Chromosome Disorders
  • Chromosomes, Human, Pair 18
  • Female
  • High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing*
  • Humans
  • Pregnancy
  • Prenatal Diagnosis / methods*
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Software
  • Trisomy / diagnosis*