Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0283024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283024

A high-throughput newborn screening approach for SCID, SMA, and SCD combining multiplex qPCR and tandem mass spectrometry

Rafael Tesorero 1,*,#, Joachim Janda 1,*,#, Friederike Hörster 1, Patrik Feyh 1, Ulrike Mütze 1, Jana Hauke 1, Kathrin Schwarz 1, Joachim B Kunz 2, Georg F Hoffmann 1, Jürgen G Okun 1
Editor: Elsayed Abdelkreem3
PMCID: PMC10004496  PMID: 36897914

Abstract

Early diagnosis of severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), and sickle cell disease (SCD) improves health outcomes by providing a specific treatment before the onset of symptoms. A high-throughput nucleic acid-based method in newborn screening (NBS) has been shown to be fast and cost-effective in the early detection of these diseases. Screening for SCD has been included in Germany’s NBS Program since Fall 2021 and typically requires high-throughput NBS laboratories to adopt analytical platforms that are demanding in terms of instrumentation and personnel. Thus, we developed a combined approach applying a multiplexed quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) assay for simultaneous SCID, SMA, and 1st-tier SCD screening, followed by a tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) assay for 2nd-tier SCD screening. DNA is extracted from a 3.2-mm dried blood spot from which we simultaneously quantify T-cell receptor excision circles for SCID screening, identify the homozygous SMN1 exon 7 deletion for SMA screening, and determine the integrity of the DNA extraction through the quantification of a housekeeping gene. In our two-tier SCD screening strategy, our multiplex qPCR identifies samples carrying the HBB: c.20A>T allele that is coding for sickle cell hemoglobin (HbS). Subsequently, the 2nd tier MS/MS assay is used to distinguish heterozygous HbS/A carriers from samples of patients with homozygous or compound heterozygous SCD. Between July 2021 and March 2022, 96,015 samples were screened by applying the newly implemented assay. The screening revealed two positive SCID cases, while 14 newborns with SMA were detected. Concurrently, the qPCR assay registered HbS in 431 samples which were submitted to 2nd-tier SCD screening, resulting in 17 HbS/S, five HbS/C, and two HbS/β thalassemia patients. The results of our quadruplex qPCR assay demonstrate a cost-effective and fast approach for a combined screening of three diseases that benefit from nucleic-acid based methods in high-throughput NBS laboratories.

Introduction

The first quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR)-based newborn screening (NBS) in Germany was implemented in August 2019 to detect severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), a group of inherited primary immunodeficiencies with an incidence estimated to be between 1:30,000–1:50,000 and which are characterized by the absence or extremely low numbers of naïve T-cells [1]. Infants born with SCID typically are asymptomatic at birth, but if not diagnosed and treated early, the diseases turn fatal within the first year of life due to opportunistic infections. Curative human stem cell transplantation (HSCT), enzyme replacement or gene therapy within the first months of life substantially increase the survival rates of SCID patients [2]. Because SCID is characterized by low to undetectable levels of T-cells, it can be detected early by measuring thymic function through the quantification of T-cell receptors excision circles (TRECs) from peripheral blood [3]. TRECs are stable, non-replicative, extrachromosomal circular DNA byproducts generated during the T-cell receptor rearrangement that occur in about 70% of newly matured T-cells. They are elevated in healthy newborns, and decline with increasing age due to decreased thymic activity [4]. TRECs can be effectively and rapidly quantified by a qPCR assay from infant dried blood spots (DBS) used for NBS programs. The TREC assay was first implemented in 2008 in Wisconsin, USA as a method for SCID screening [5]. Since then, several countries have nationally or regionally established SCID screening in their NBS programs by means of qPCR, opening up the possibilities for genetic screening of other diseases without a biomarker.

Another disease recently added to the German NBS panel that benefits from early detection from nucleic-based methods is spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), an autosomal recessively inherited disorder characterized by the degeneration of alpha motor neurons in the spinal cord, which results in progressive proximal muscle weakness and atrophy [6]. With an incidence of 1:6,000 to 1:10,000, SMA is the most common inherited neurodegenerative disease and was the leading genetic cause of death in early childhood [7,8]. The severity of symptoms depends on the SMA type classification, which is based on age of onset and achieved motor function [9]. The survival motor neuron (SMN) protein is encoded by two genes, the main functional SMN1 gene and the paralog SMN2 gene. The SMN1 gene produces a functional SMN protein, while the SMN2 gene encodes an attenuated form of the SMN protein, of which only 10–20% is functional [10]. SMN1 is the disease-determining gene, and in SMA patients the SMN2 gene copy number determines the type of SMA and its phenotypic severity [11]. The major difference between the SMN1 and SMN2 genes is a C to T change in exon 7 (c.840C>T), which causes a splicing error by generating transcripts lacking exon 7, and thus the expression of a defective SMN protein [12]. This single nucleotide change can identify the homozygous SMN1 exon 7 deletion present in approximately 95% of SMA cases, and therefore serves as the primary target for early detection of SMA in NBS by qPCR [13]. Recently, the combined screening of SMA and SCID in a single multiplex qPCR assay has been established through a single multiplex qPCR assay, thus saving time and resources [14]. Subsequently, an already established multiplex qPCR assay can be modified to include other target diseases.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a heterogenous group of inherited blood disorders characterized by the sickle hemoglobin (HbS) allele, either present in a homozygous (SCD-S/S) or compound heterozygous form with another pathogenic hemoglobin variant (e.g. SCD-S/C, SCD-S/β-thalassemia). HbS is caused by a nucleotide change in the sixth codon of the hemoglobin β chain gene (HBB: c.20A>T), which leads to a substitution of glutamine for valine (p.Glu7Val) [15]. Homozygosity for the HbS allele is the most severe and most common reason for SCD [16]. HbS is prone to polymerization and can cause erythrocytes to lyse and clog capillaries. Clinically, patients with SCD typically present at the age of three to four months with painful, often life-threatening vaso-occlusive crises [17]. Despite being considered a disease most prevalent in African countries, parts of the Middle East, and the tropics, SCD has an estimated birth prevalence of approximately 1:4,000 in Germany [15,18,19]. Diagnosis relies on the phenotypic analysis of hemoglobin; commonly established analytical techniques used for SCD screening include capillary electrophoresis (CE), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), iso-electric focusing, tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), or MALDI-TOF MS [2022].

For high-throughput (e. g. ≥ 500 samples per day) NBS laboratories, the implementation of new target diseases may substantially impact their ability to operate economically, e. g. if new instruments are required or new assays cannot be integrated into existing analytical procedures. Considerable additional demands may also be placed on logistical processes, such as sample distribution, or on having the necessary personnel. The screening laboratories were confronted with these demands upon the implementation of SCD in the German screening panel. PCR, while used for genotyping and some prenatal diagnosis, has not been used for routine SCD screening [23]. Nevertheless, it has been proven that DNA-based methods can unambiguously detect the presence of HbS in DBS by specifically targeting the HBB: c.20A>T allele [24,25]. This raises the option to adapt such an approach as an initial screening so that it can be integrated into an existing multiplexed high-throughput qPCR environment to detect all specimens containing HbS alleles. This, however, also comprises samples of the HbS carrier state, HbS/A. Such individuals are typically asymptomatic and must not be reported due to the German Gene Diagnostics Law [26]. Therefore, a second method is mandatory within the screening process to differentiate HbS/A from the pathogenic SCD variants.

Here we introduce a novel two-tiered approach combining qPCR and MS/MS, in which high-throughput NBS for SCID, SMA, and the presence of the HBB: c.20A>T allele is performed by a multiplex qPCR assay. To distinguish the carrier state from specimens with SCD within the preselected HbS-containing samples, and for phenotypic differentiation, an MS/MS assay is used as a 2nd-tier method. In addition, we outline the workflow developed in combining both analytical platforms and the outcomes obtained with this methodological approach during a three-month pilot study and six months of routine screening.

Material and methods

DBS samples

DBS samples were taken from the NBS laboratory of Heidelberg University Hospital. Three months prior to implementation of SMA and SCD to the German regular NBS on October 1, 2021, screening for SMA and SCD was integrated into the Heidelberg NBS pilot study “NGS2025”, which includes the additional screening of 28 disorders (DRKS-ID DRKS00025324; approved by the Heidelberg ethics committee: application no. S- 533/2015) [27]. In the pilot period, only samples from newborns participating in this study (i.e. written informed consent of at least one parent/caregiver) were screened (n = 26,779). Likewise, NBS specimens used during method development were obtained only from filter cards of individuals participating in this study. With the start of SMA and SCD screening as part of the regular NBS panel in Germany on October 1, 2021, the screening workflow was applied to all NBS samples sent to our laboratory from then on (October 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022: n = 69,236). Positive SCD and SMA control samples, which served as references, were of patients treated in Heidelberg University Hospital after informed consent.

For the multiplex-qPCR assay, a single 3.2-mm punch per specimen was collected into a 96-well 0.2 mL plate (Sarstedt, Germany) using a Panthera-Puncher™ (Perkin-Elmer, Massachusetts USA). DBS samples with concentrated Bovine RBC (Innovative Research, Inc.) were spiked with synthetic dsDNA (gBlock™ Gene Fragments, IDT, Iowa USA) to be used as negative and positive quality controls (QCs 1–3, S1 Table). Each 96-well plate contained duplicates of each QC and two blank wells (no template control, NTC). Samples for the 2nd-tier SCD method were manually punched from the same Guthrie cards used for the primary screening.

Diagnostic specimens used during method development and as positive quality controls for MS/MS were from adult patients with confirmed diagnoses who had given informed consent and were provided by the Department of Pediatric Oncology, Hematology, and Immunology at Heidelberg University Hospital.

Chemicals

Acetic acid (CH3COOH, LC-MS grade), acetonitrile (ACN) and methanol (MeOH) were purchased from VWR (Darmstadt, Germany). Formic acid (HCOOH, ULC/MS) was purchased from Biosolve (Valkenswaard, The Netherlands). Newborn haemoglobinopathy screening kits were bought from SpotOn Clinical Diagnostics Ltd. (London, Great Britain). Deionized water (H2ODI) was taken from an in-house preparation plant and ultra-pure water (H2OmQ) was prepared in-house using a GenPure Pro purification system from Thermo (Dreieich, Germany).

DNA extraction

We utilized a modified two-step DNA extraction protocol that can be performed in a 96-well plate without the need of a column purification or precipitation step. Each DBS sample was first washed with 100 μL of Extracta DBS (Quantabio, Massachusetts USA) and centrifuged for 5 min at 2,082 x g. The supernatant was discarded using a Platemaster® P220 (Gilson, Middleton, Wisconsin USA), followed by an elution in 50 μL of Extracta DBS. The DBS samples were lysed by incubating in a thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems, Massachusetts USA) at 98°C for 20 min and then brought to 4°C. The DNA concentrations were not measured, and the lysate was diluted with 100 μL nuclease-free water (Invitrogen, Massachusetts USA) chilled at 4°C and briefly centrifuged to decrease inconsistencies between replicates.

qPCR assay design

The TREC assay was first implemented and accredited for SCID screening in our laboratory in August 2018 and was based on previously described methods [28,29]. Upon implementation of the new diseases, we kept the same TREC assay probes and modified our protocol accordingly. The combined TREC and SMN1 analysis and the allele-specific PCR for the HbS mutation have been previously described [14]. Some of the oligos for TREC, SMN1, ACTB, and HBB: c.20A>T allele (hereinafter referred to as HbS allele) were based on previously described versions or have been modified thereof (Table 1) [14,24,28,30]. All oligos were synthetized by Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT, Iowa USA). The oligos for SCID screening are specific for the signal-joint region (δRec-ψJα) of TREC, which is in itself specific for actively differentiating T-cells in the thymus. SMA screening is performed in accordance with the recommendation from the German Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundsausschuss, G-BA) [31]. The screening is based on the homologous SMN1 exon 7 deletion (also known as 5q-linked SMA) assay by targeting the c.840C>T single nucleotide variant. To increase target specificity and stability, we used the locked nucleic acid (LNA™) base modifications, such as the Affinity Plus™ monomers provided by IDT, to design the SMN1 probe. Additionally, we used the same principle from the SMN1 assay for the 1st-tier SCD screening probe design. SCD screening is based on the presence of the HbS allele, which results from a nucleotide change in the sixth codon of HBB; we therefore used the LNA modifications specific for the HbS allele to differentiate it from the non-pathogenic allele. To monitor the integrity of the DBS and DNA extraction, ACTB (β-actin) was utilized as an internal control target.

Table 1. Sequences of the primers and probes with their respective fluorophore reporter, quencher and nucleotide modifications used in the qPCR screening assay.

Target Oligos Sequence (5’-3’)
TREC Fwd primer TTTGTAAAGGTGCCCACTCCT
Rev primer GCCAGCTGCAGGGTTTAGG
TREC probe FAM- CGGTGATGC/ZEN/ATAGGCACCTGCACC -3IABkFQ
SMN Fwd primer AATGCTTTTTAACATCCATATAAAGCTATC
Rev primer GAATGTGAGCACCTTCCTTC
SMN1 probe* SUN- AGGG+TT+T+C+AGA+CAA -3IABkFQ
SMN2 blocker* AGGG+TT+T+T+AGA+CAA
HBB: c.20A>T Fwd primer CAACTGTGTTCACTAGCAACC
Rev primer CCCCACAGGGCAGTAACG
HbS allele probe* Cy5.5- CT+C+CT+G+T+GGAG -3IAbRQSp
HBB blocker* CT+C+CT+G+A+GGAG
ACTB Fwd primer ATTTCCCTCTCAGGCATGGA
Rev primer CACGTCACACTTCATGATGGA
ACTB probe Cy5- CCTGTGGCA/TAO/TCCACGAAACTACCTTC -3IAbRQSp

*Bases with + denote locked nucleic acid (LNA™) modifications. Underlined bases indicate nucleotide change of interest for SMN1 exon 7 (c.840C) and HBB: c.20A>T alleles.

qPCR preparation

The qPCR assay was performed in a 384-well plate including a 1x PerfeCTa® Multiplex qPCR ToughMix® with Low Rox (Quantabio, Massachusetts USA) master mix. End concentrations were 200 nM of TREC primers, 225 nM of HBB primers, 125 nM of SMN primers, and 50 nM of ACTB primers. The fluorescent probes specific for the corresponding target sequences used were 150 nM of FAM labeled probe for TREC with double-quenchers, 90 nM of SUN labeled probe for SMN1, and 200 nM of Cy5.5 labeled probe for HbS allele. Finally, 75 nM of Cy5 labeled probe for ACTB were added. Two unlabeled LNA probes were designed for SMN2 and HBB as previously described and added to the quadruplex mix at a final concentration of 50 nM [30].

The master mix was distributed in a 384-well plate with a PIPETMAX® Liquid Handling System (Gilson, Wisconsin USA). This step allowed us to accurately dispense 12 μL master mix into each required well in the plate, while our custom protocol allowed us to flexibly adapt to varying requirements, e. g. depending on the number of samples. A total of 3 μL template from the 96-well DNA plate was distributed in a fixed manner into a 384-well plate with a second PIPETMAX® Liquid Handling System. The qPCR reaction was carried out in a 384-well block in the QuantStudio™ 7 Flex System (Applied Biosystems, Massachusetts USA). Each qPCR run included an initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95°C for 10 s, 60°C for 20 s, and 68°C for 15 s. Data collection was set during the 60°C annealing step.

Sample preparation for 2nd-tier SCD analysis

The sample preparation was performed according to the instructions given by the hemoglobinopathy screening kit’s manufacturer with minor modifications. Since the kit is designed as a first-tier assay, six aliquots each were prepared after the initial thawing of a pair of the kit’s reagents, five of which were immediately refrozen and stored at -80°C until use. One 3.2-mm punch of a dry blood sample was placed into a well of a polypropylene microplate (F-bottom, 96 well), and 50 μL each of prepared reagents 1 (solution of an isotopically labelled HbS fragment) and 2 (buffered trypsine solution), both diluted in deionized water, were added. The plate was sealed with a removable foil (Biozym, Hessisch Oldendorf, Germany), and after a short centrifugation step (2 min at 385 × g), the mixture was incubated for 90 min at 37°C with gentle shaking. Afterwards, the seal was removed and the reaction stopped by adding 200 μL of 0.1% HCOOH in ACN/H2OmQ (9:1, v/v) to each well. The samples were centrifuged again (5 min at 690 × g), before 25 μL of the resulting supernatant were diluted with 225 μL mobile phase B in a second microplate (U-bottom, 96 well). After sealing this plate with a pierceable foil and 5 min of gentle mixing, 5 μL of this solution were subjected to instrumental analysis.

For quality control purposes, five additional control samples (one each of chemical blank, filter blank, HbS/S, HbS/C, and HbS/A) were included in each sample series along with the quality controls included in the kit.

Tandem-MS

Samples were analyzed using a flow-injection MS/MS (FIA-MS/MS) system consisting of an Acquity UPLC binary solvent manager, 2777C sample manager, and a Xevo TQD MS (all from Waters, Eschborn, Germany) operated with an electrospray ionization source in positive mode with the following settings: Capillary voltage: 3.0 kV, source temperature: 150°C, desolvation temperature: 500°C, desolvation gas flow: 800 L/h, and cone gas flow: 250 L/h. Mobile phases were 0.3% CH3COOH in 80% H2OmQ/20% MeOH (v/v; A) and 0.3% CH3COOH in 20% H2OmQ/80% MeOH (v/v; B). A flow rate of 80 μL/min with 100% B was kept constant during the first minute of analysis. Subsequently, flushing at 400 μL/min with 100% A was performed for 0.3 min, then with 100% B for 0.4 min, and finally equilibration at the initial flow rate for 0.3 min. Informative mass transitions were monitored during the first minute of the measurement using an MRM experiment, applying constant cone voltage (30 V) and dwell times (50 ms). The corresponding transitions and collision voltages were obtained beforehand by infusing discrete solutions of the target peptides into the MS and are summarized in S2 Table. TargetLynx software was used to calculate the ratios between the signals of peptide fragments derived from pathogenic hemoglobin variants and—in most cases -their corresponding wild-type analogs, as well as hemoglobin F and A. The methodical workflows are illustrated in S1 Fig.

Results

qPCR analyses

After analysis of 4,610 samples of healthy newborns, cutoffs were established on the resulting copy numbers: the TREC cutoff was based on the 2.5th percentile, while SMN1 and ACTB cutoffs were based on the 99.55th percentiles. For TREC, ACTB, and SMN1 quantification, a standard curve was obtained through a serial 10-fold dilution of known copy numbers of synthetic dsDNA (gBlock, IDT) of each target. The TREC cutoff was set to five copies per punch, while ACTB was set at 1,226 copies per punch. Samples at or below the TREC or ACTB cutoff were re-tested from two new DBS. Duplicates with ACTB below the cutoff were considered unsatisfactory for DNA extraction from DBS and repeated with a second sample. If ACTB results were satisfactory, but TREC was not amplified or below the cutoff, then a T-cell deficiency would be suspected and a recall initiated.

For SMA screening, the SMN1 cutoff was established at 1,114 copies per punch. Any sample below the cutoff was repeated from two new DBS as previously described. Samples that failed to amplify SMN1, but had satisfactory ACTB values exceeding the defined cutoff, were considered SMA positive and forwarded for diagnosis. For 1st-tier SCD screening, no cutoff was set for HbS allele amplification. Any sample with a positive HbS allele amplification signal, including both heterozygous and homozygous, was subjected to 2nd-tier MS/MS screening.

Positive controls

The sensitivity and specificity of our multiplex qPCR assay were tested with a number of positive and negative controls obtained from patients with confirmed diagnoses. In total, samples of six SMA patients, three SCID patients and 61 different HbS carrying individuals were blindly measured. All controls were correctly identified by our multiplex assay as depicted in Fig 1. In a typical sample from a healthy individual, TREC and SMN1 were detected, while the lack of a positive HbS allele amplification signal indicated the absence of HbS and therefore a non-carrier individual. In a SCID patient, TRECs were not detected. Correspondingly, the absence of SMN1 indicated an SMA patient. An amplified HbS allele signal in the plot indicated the presence of the HbS mutation in the corresponding sample, which would subsequently be analyzed by 2nd-tier MS/MS-based screening for differentiation. In all cases, ACTB serves as an internal control to determine DNA integrity after extraction, which is indicated by the corresponding amplification. To determine the specificity of the HbS probe, we additionally tested hemoglobin C (HbC) containing samples devoid of HbS, i. e. an HbC/C confirmed sample and HbC/A confirmed carriers. As depicted in S3 Fig, our multiplex assay did not amplify any HbC specimens that did not contain the HbS allele (results obtained for the same samples applying the MS/MS assay are given in S4 Table). Although qPCR alone may be applied to distinguish between heterozygous HbS/A and homozygous HbS/S, this principle was not expanded upon in our screening approach since the relevant compound-heterozygous SCD variants would be missed and a method to differentiate carrier and disease state would be required nonetheless.

Fig 1. Amplification plots for the fluorescent probes representing the four targets ACTB, HbS allele, SMN1, and TREC in samples of four different physiological conditions.

Fig 1

(A) A normal newborn, or screening negative, sample showing a normal amplification of ACTB, SMN1, and TREC, and no amplification of the HbS allele; (B) a reference SCID positive sample showing no TREC amplification; (C) a reference SMA positive sample with no SMN1 amplification; (D) a sample showing HbS amplification indicating the allele presence. The figure was created using R (v. 4.1.2), ggplot2 (v. 3.3.5), dplyr (v. 1.0.7).

Tandem-MS analyses

A commercial MS/MS-based hemoglobinopathy screening kit was selected as the method for differentiation because the analytical platform already existed in our laboratory and there were published reports on, e.g., the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity achieved with the kit [21,32]. As part of the implementation of the assay, tuning experiments were performed to evaluate manufacturer-recommended and previously published mass transitions for the target peptides within the scope of the kit. To compare their sensitivity with the mass spectrometer being used, solutions of the individual peptides supplied by the kit manufacturer were infused into the instrument separately in concentrations of 1.0 μg/mL each. To increase the potential identification points in the assay, two mass transitions were monitored for most targeted peptides, as summarized in S2 Table. When different mobile phases were tested during the tuning experiments, we found that signal intensities increased substantially when a MeOH-based eluent (MeOH / H2OmQ (4:1) + 0.3% acetic acid) was used instead of the mobile phase proposed in the original protocol. This effect is shown in S2 Fig for the HbS beta T1 peptide, where the methanolic mobile phase led to a signal increase of over 350% for the parent and daughter ions compared to the proposed ACN-based mobile phase. Considering the opportunity of further diluting the crude extracts and thus minimizing the matrix load on the instrument, we opted for the MeOH-based mobile phase.

Typically, SCD screening by means of MS/MS is evaluated by calculating diagnostic ratios obtained by dividing Hb variant signals by corresponding wild type signals [21]. The diagnostic ratios used here are summarized in S3 Table. Due to the application as a 2nd-tier method, the focus was on distinguishing between sickle cell trait (HbS/A) and SCD variants. Therefore, during the development phase, cutoffs for the two HbS/HbA ratios were determined by repeated analyses of samples from newborns with sickle cell trait (n = 54). After elimination of outliers, the 97.5th percentiles were calculated leading to cutoffs of 2.67 and 3.17 for HbS/HbA_1 and HbS/HbA_2, respectively. In our combined screening approach, wildtype samples are usually sorted out after the qPCR assay. However, for internal quality assurance and the option to categorize screen negative samples, threshold levels of 0.15 were set for both HbS/HbA ratios based on previously published data and results obtained using the MS/MS method on wildtype samples during method development. For the other diagnostic signal ratios (HbC/HbA, HbE/HbA, etc.), previously published action values were used [21].

An occasional problem encountered when calculating diagnostic ratios with the evaluation software commonly used in primary MS/MS-based screening for SCD (i.e., NeoLynx for Waters instruments) is division by zero. Given the opportunity in our two-tier approach to manually review and reintegrate the acquired signals of a comparably substantially reduced number of samples (compared to MS/MS applied as 1st-tier or general screening method) and thus minimize this issue, a TargetLynx-based evaluation method was set up, in which the HbA mass transitions were defined as “internal standards” for the respective ratios to be calculated.

Screening results

Pilot study

During the three-month pilot study, the combined screening approach was employed in routine operation to test the methodology and improve the corresponding workflows. 26,779 NBS samples were analyzed in parallel to the existing NBS performed in the Heidelberg screening center. The newly implemented SMN1 assay in our multiplex qPCR detected a total of four samples without a positive amplification of the SMN1 gene. All samples showed a representative amplification of the β-actin reference gene and TREC quantification was satisfactory. These samples were repeated as duplicates in accordance with our screening algorithm, and the absence of the SMN1 exon 7 was verified, with further confirmation of an SMA diagnosis in specialized accredited centers with further SMN2 copy number determination. In the same period, no false negative or false positive SMN1 exon 7 deletions were reported.

In the novel 1st tier NBS for SCD, qPCR detected HbS alleles in 120 samples, which were subsequently submitted to the MS/MS assay for further differentiation. Here, 78 samples were characterized as HbS/A and seven were SCD positive (six HbS/S and one HbS/C). These seven specimens were reported as conspicuous for the respective SCD variants and were further confirmed during patient follow-up. However, the remaining 35 samples did not contain HbS (i.e., most likely HbA/A) and the flagging for differentiation by MS/MS resulted from signal noise exceeding the defined threshold in the primary screening. In reproducibility tests, it was found that such samples could be identified in most cases by repetition of the qPCR analyses from two new DBS. Technically, in our screening approach, samples that may be erroneously flagged as suspicious for SCD due to high background noise would be identified during 2nd tier analysis in any case. Nevertheless, a control measurement by qPCR was introduced after the pilot phase for any suspicious sample to reduce the number of such cases and facilitate the routine workflow for the technical staff. In the MS/MS assay, two repeated injections were introduced whenever samples led to questionable results (e.g., one HbS/HbA ratio above and the other below the respective cutoff) or those that would lead to pathologic diagnoses in order to verify reproducibility and facilitate diagnostic decision-making.

Routine screening

The above-mentioned measures led to a workflow depicted in Fig 2, which was applied as part of regular screening from October 2021 onwards. Until March 31, 2022, 69,915 additional NBS samples were screened with our combined approach of the multiplex qPCR and 2nd-tier MS/MS assay for SCD screening. Two SCID cases, one non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia (TCL) case (CHARGE syndrome), and ten further SMA patients were detected while the two-tier approach for SCD screening resulted in 311 patient samples flagged as suspicious by qPCR and subsequently assayed by MS/MS. Of these, eleven samples were classified as homozygous HbS/S, five were compound-heterozygous HbS/C, two HbS/β-thalassemia (initially reported as HbS/S), and 285 samples HbS/A. All pathologic conditions found were confirmed during follow-up. One sample of a preterm infant had multiple elevated ratios due to low HbA levels and was recalled. The remaining eight samples gave HbS/HbA ratios < 0.15 and had been flagged due to signal noise exceeding the qPCR threshold. However, the introduction of the second PCR measurement reduced the share of such samples in the MS/MS differentiation method by over 90%.

Fig 2. The combined SCID, SMA and SCD screening.

Fig 2

Between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022, a total of 96,015 newborns were screened with a multiplex qPCR assay for SCID, SMA, and SCD. By the end of this period, a total of two SCID, one non-SCID syndromal lymphopenia,14 SMA, and 22 SCD patients were identified, * X = DPunjab, E, or OArab; ** one preterm patient was recalled. The figure was created with InkScape (v. 1.2).

Discussion

A multiplexed qPCR assay was combined with an MS/MS assay enabling simultaneous high-throughput NBS for SCID, SMA, and SCD in a two-tiered setup. On peak days, more than 1,000 samples could be processed with the established multiplex qPCR workflow. To cope with such sample throughput, the qPCR analysis performing the primary screen requires a fast and efficient DNA extraction technique from DBS, an accurate liquid handling system, and a qPCR instrument capable of multi-channel detection in a 384-well format; this was realized in the qPCR method described. During a three-month pilot study and six months use in regular screening, 96,015 newborns were screened, which resulted in two SCID, one non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia, 14 SMA, and 24 SCD diagnoses, which were each confirmed after referral of the patients for follow-up to specialized and approved centers by the G-BA. After the nine-month screening period, the birth prevalence of SMA and SCD in southwestern Germany (approximately 1:6,857 and 1:4,000, respectively) is in accordance with former studies [7,8,19].

For SCD screening, particularly in high-throughput screening laboratories, qPCR can be a powerful tool to substantially decrease a large sample set to fewer HbS-containing specimens. In our case, its application reduced the sample size for the differentiation method through MS/MS by 99.6%. By implementing the LNA modifications in the HbS probe, just as it has been proven for the SMN1 exon 7 deletion assay, it was possible to sort out samples devoid of the HbS allele quickly and reliably.

Moreover, the designed probe for the HbS allele proved to be highly specific, as it failed to hybridize with a HbC homozygous sample and several HbC heterozygous carriers. The genetic variant for HbC (HBB: c.19G>A) occurs at the same codon as for HbS (HBB: c.20A>T), but its presence did not affect our assay [33]. Nevertheless, lessons learned during the pilot phase helped to further optimize the workflow for regular SCD screening: Initially, samples screened positive for presence of HbS alleles by qPCR were automatically flagged for 2nd-tier analysis after their first measurement; in this stage, approximately 29% of these suspicious samples were flagged due to high background noise or artefacts effects only. After a second qPCR measurement for already flagged samples had been introduced into our workflow, this share could be substantially reduced to 2.6% in regular screening leading to smaller sample sequences in the 2nd-tier analyses. According to Guideline 025/016 of the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, the confirmatory analysis performed as part of the follow-up of SCD patients should have been performed by the 28th day of life [34]. This requirement can be effortlessly met even with an additional qPCR and a weekly 2nd-tier analysis in NBS.

Two major pitfalls have been discussed before the implementation of SCD into the German NBS program: blood transfusion may cause a false-negative, and prematurity up to the 34th week of gestation may cause false-positive results [26,35]. Both confounding factors are frequently found within our screening population—during our study, a frequency of 1:405 transfused and 1:77 premature samples were screened. As the results of qPCR are inherently unaffected by these confounders, the application of a genetic method for SCD mass screening has the major advantage to reduce the number of recalls for such newborns compared to a biochemical screening method. Recalls due to blood transfusion are particularly critical, as a resampling eight weeks after the last transfusion is mandatory, and the risk for lost-to follow-up cases increases by age.

The SpotOn MS/MS assay for SCD screening is originally designed as a 1st-tier analysis and its application has been previously reported by multiple groups [21,32]. Here, it has been used as a 2nd-tier assay which required the preparation of aliquots from the original kit reagents. Considering the mass transitions for the isotopically labelled digestion control and results of the quality controls run in each batch of samples, currently no negative effects on the functionality of the kit due to this additional thawing/freezing step have been observed. As expected, the MS/MS assay successfully distinguished the HbS carrier state from SCD variants, so that only the latter were reported. Figures for diagnostic sensitivity (95.8–100%) and selectivity (98.7–100%) depending on SCD variants have been reported earlier for the kit’s principal target conditions in NBS laboratories with corresponding cutoff values for variants-to-wildtype ratios (other than HbS/HbA) as used here [21]. In such considerations, the SCD variants that respond with the same diagnostic ratios, i.e., HbS/HbA for SCD-S/S, SCD-S/β° thalassemia, and SCD due to combined HbS and hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin are grouped together, as their classification by genotype can be equivocal [19]. In Germany, this classification is performed during follow-up in specialized hematology centers. Similarly, in our study, two individuals with a pattern indicating SCD due to homozygous HbS/S turned out to be SCD-S/β-thalassemia in the confirmatory diagnostics. However, the primary goal of NBS is to identify patients who are at risk for a particular disease, and this goal was fully achieved for all screen positives detected in our study. Nevertheless, further evaluation criteria (e.g., gestation-dependent F/A ratios) are currently being tested in our laboratory with the aim of further improving the assignment of SCD genotypes.

The drastic reduction of samples from 1st to 2nd-tier analysis mentioned above also translates into a more cost-effective operation compared to a scenario in which the full number of incoming samples would be analyzed by MS/MS (or HPLC, or CE): In the latter case, at least three analytical systems would be necessary to perform the daily work (not to mention personnel, consumables, chemicals). In contrast, in our approach the daily work (qPCR) can be managed by the same staff who did the nucleic acid-based SCID screening before the inclusion of SMA and SCD screening. For the 2nd-tier analyses a single MS-system is sufficient, which is run once a week.

While the screening approach combining multiplexed qPCR and MS/MS is the most suitable for our laboratory, the entailed component of two-tiered SCD screening could be adapted depending on the respective surrounding conditions, e.g., as standalone approach without SCID and SMA screening or in combination with another differentiation method. For the latter case, any method that is capable of distinguishing heterozygous carriers and SCD variants could be applied. Instrumental platforms typically used for such purposes as mentioned in the introduction (e.g., CE, HPLC, or MS/MS) are usually complex and costly. However, in this respect, qPCR-based primary screening for HbS alleles and thus reducing the sample size to a group of specimens relevant to further investigations might be a promising approach to open SCD screening to less complicated and/or inexpensive methods, such as chip-based microelectrophoresis, aqueous multi-phase systems based on cell density measurements, lateral flow immunoassays, or even classical electrophoresis [23,3638].

Conclusions

Our study highlights the excellent multiplexing capability of the qPCR platform by integrating a primary screen for SCD into an already existing two-plex NBS assay for SCID and SMA. Furthermore, this extended method can easily process with the sample numbers that occur in a high-throughput NBS environment. Compared to other platforms used for SCD mass screening, this approach is efficient and far less demanding with regard to instrumental, personnel, or spatial requirements. The qPCR-based 1st-tier screening reliably detected samples containing HbS alleles, substantially reducing the sample amount for the 2nd-tier differentiation method. Moreover, due to the inherent sensitivity of qPCR, the method is largely unimpaired by typically challenging samples, such as those from preterm or transfused patients reducing their recall rate in SCD screening. In the 2nd-tier MS/MS method, a simple change of the mobile phase led to substantially increased signal intensities, enabling work with further diluted extracts, which may have a positive impact on maintenance cycles and instrument stability.

Although in the presented setup MS/MS is applied after the qPCR primary screen, any method appropriate to discriminate SCD phenotypes and heterozygous HbS carriers could be used as a 2nd-tier method, which may in turn provide an opportunity for SCD screening in less industrialized countries.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Workflow representing the tasks for sample preparation and analysis.

(A) For the qPCR-based approach for SCID, SMA and 1st-tier SCD newborn screening. (B) For the MS/MS-based differentiation for 2nd-tier SCD newborn screening. This figure is accompanying the decision workflow depicted in Fig 2 of the main manuscript; prepared with Inkscape (1.2.2).

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Mass spectra for the HbS bT1 peptide (Parent Ion) acquired in MS1 scan and its y7-fragment (daughter Ion) acquired in MS2 scan.

All spectra were recorded in ‘Multi Channel Analysis’ mode Acquisition during 30 s with cycle time set to automatic and 2.0 s scan duration. The spectra were obtained by infusing solutions of the peptide (1.0 μg/mL) dissolved in an acetonitrile-based (solid line) and methanol-based (dotted) mobile phase.

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Amplification plots for four exemplary HbC-containing specimens devoid of HbS (three HbC/A and one HbC/C).

The signal for the HbS allele is not amplified in any of the samples. The corresponding MS/MS results are shown in S4 Table.

(PDF)

S1 Table. Quality controls (QCs) composition used in the qPCR assay.

Bovine RBC was 1:2 diluted with TE buffer pH 8.0 and different synthetic dsDNA (gBlocks, IDT) were used to spike the different QCs. RBC: Red blood cells.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Targeted Hb-mutations, assigned mass transitions, and optimized MS parameters used in the 2nd tier instrumental analysis.

(PDF)

S3 Table. Diagnostic ratios used in the 2nd tier MS/MS method, the mass transitions for their calculation, and the action values applied.

(PDF)

S4 Table. Diagnostic ratios obtained with the MS/MS assay for the four HbC-containing specimens corresponding to the amplification plots depicted in S3 Fig.

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The newborn screening pilot study (“Expansion of Newborn Screening by an additional 28 target diseases”) is generously supported by the Dietmar Hopp Foundation, St. Leon- Rot, Germany (2311220 and 1DH1911376 to G.F.H.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Federico Serana mC Cinzia Zanotti, Sottini Alessandra, Bertoli Diego, Bosio Andrea, Caimi Luigi, et al. Use of V(D)J recombination excision circles to identify T- and B-cell defects and to monitor the treatment in primary and acquired immunodeficiencies. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2013;11(119). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sottini A, Ghidini C, Zanotti C, Chiarini M, Caimi L, Lanfranchi A, et al. Simultaneous quantification of recent thymic T-cell and bone marrow B-cell emigrants in patients with primary immunodeficiency undergone to stem cell transplantation. Clin Immunol. 2010;136(2):217–27. Epub 20100510. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2010.04.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chan K, Puck JM. Development of population-based newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005;115(2):391–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.10.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Angela Mensen CO, Andreas Stroux, Friedrich Wittenbecher, Martin Szyska, Luisa Imberti, Simon Fillatreau, et al. Utilization of TREC and KREC quantification for the monitoring of early T- and B-cell neogenesis in adult patients after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2013;11(188). doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-188 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kwan A, Abraham RS, Currier R, Brower A, Andruszewski K, Abbott JK, et al. Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency in 11 screening programs in the United States. JAMA. 2014;312(7):729–38. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.9132 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4492158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Verhaart IEC, Robertson A, Wilson IJ, Aartsma-Rus A, Cameron S, Jones CC, et al. Prevalence, incidence and carrier frequency of 5q-linked spinal muscular atrophy—a literature review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12(1):124. Epub 20170704. doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0671-8 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5496354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Czibere L, Burggraf S, Fleige T, Gluck B, Keitel LM, Landt O, et al. High-throughput genetic newborn screening for spinal muscular atrophy by rapid nucleic acid extraction from dried blood spots and 384-well qPCR. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28(1):23–30. Epub 20190730. doi: 10.1038/s41431-019-0476-4 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6906434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Vill K, Kolbel H, Schwartz O, Blaschek A, Olgemoller B, Harms E, et al. One Year of Newborn Screening for SMA—Results of a German Pilot Project. J Neuromuscul Dis. 2019;6(4):503–15. doi: 10.3233/JND-190428 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6918901. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Viscidi E, Juneja M, Wang J, Wang N, Li L, Farwell W, et al. Comparative All-Cause Mortality Among a Large Population of Patients with Spinal Muscular Atrophy Versus Matched Controls. Neurol Ther. 2022;11(1):449–57. Epub 20211222. doi: 10.1007/s40120-021-00307-7 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8857352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Butchbach ME. Copy Number Variations in the Survival Motor Neuron Genes: Implications for Spinal Muscular Atrophy and Other Neurodegenerative Diseases. Front Mol Biosci. 2016;3:7. Epub 20160310. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2016.00007 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4785180. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stabley DL, Harris AW, Holbrook J, Chubbs NJ, Lozo KW, Crawford TO, et al. SMN1 and SMN2 copy numbers in cell lines derived from patients with spinal muscular atrophy as measured by array digital PCR. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2015;3(4):248–57. Epub 20150321. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.141 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4521962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wirth B. Spinal Muscular Atrophy: In the Challenge Lies a Solution. Trends Neurosci. 2021;44(4):306–22. Epub 20210107. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2020.11.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Arnold WD, Kassar D, Kissel JT. Spinal muscular atrophy: diagnosis and management in a new therapeutic era. Muscle Nerve. 2015;51(2):157–67. Epub 20141216. doi: 10.1002/mus.24497 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4293319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Taylor JL, Lee FK, Yazdanpanah GK, Staropoli JF, Liu M, Carulli JP, et al. Newborn blood spot screening test using multiplexed real-time PCR to simultaneously screen for spinal muscular atrophy and severe combined immunodeficiency. Clin Chem. 2015;61(2):412–9. Epub 20141211. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.231019 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7906865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kato GJ, Piel FB, Reid CD, Gaston MH, Ohene-Frempong K, Krishnamurti L, et al. Sickle cell disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4:18010. Epub 20180315. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2018.10 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hartwell SK, Srisawang B, Kongtawelert P, Christian GD, Grudpan K. Review on screening and analysis techniques for hemoglobin variants and thalassemia. Talanta. 2005;65(5):1149–61. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2004.09.013 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chakravorty S, Williams TN. Sickle cell disease: a neglected chronic disease of increasing global health importance. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(1):48–53. Epub 20140919. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-303773 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4285890. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kunz JB, Cario H, Grosse R, Jarisch A, Lobitz S, Kulozik AE. The epidemiology of sickle cell disease in Germany following recent large-scale immigration. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64(7). Epub 20170406. doi: 10.1002/pbc.26550 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lobitz S, Klein J, Brose A, Blankenstein O, Frommel C. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry confirms the high prevalence of sickle cell disease among German newborns. Ann Hematol. 2019;98(1):47–53. Epub 20180821. doi: 10.1007/s00277-018-3477-4 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Frommel C. Newborn Screening for Sickle Cell Disease and Other Hemoglobinopathies: A Short Review on Classical Laboratory Methods-Isoelectric Focusing, HPLC, and Capillary Electrophoresis. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2018;4(4):39. Epub 20181205. doi: 10.3390/ijns4040039 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7548892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Daniel YA, Henthorn J. Newborn screening for sickling and other haemoglobin disorders using tandem mass spectrometry: A pilot study of methodology in laboratories in England. J Med Screen. 2016;23(4):175–8. Epub 20160309. doi: 10.1177/0969141316631008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ryan K, Bain BJ, Worthington D, James J, Plews D, Mason A, et al. Significant haemoglobinopathies: guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Br J Haematol. 2010;149(1):35–49. Epub 20100113. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.08054.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Arishi WA, Alhadrami HA, Zourob M. Techniques for the Detection of Sickle Cell Disease: A Review. Micromachines (Basel). 2021;12(5). Epub 20210505. doi: 10.3390/mi12050519 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC8148117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kunz JB, Awad S, Happich M, Muckenthaler L, Lindner M, Gramer G, et al. Significant prevalence of sickle cell disease in Southwest Germany: results from a birth cohort study indicate the necessity for newborn screening. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(3):397–402. Epub 20151212. doi: 10.1007/s00277-015-2573-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Furnier SM, Durkin MS, Baker MW. Translating Molecular Technologies into Routine Newborn Screening Practice. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2020;6(4). Epub 20201015. doi: 10.3390/ijns6040080 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7712315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.G-BA. Screening auf Sichelzellkrankheit bei Neugeborenen: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). 2020. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/beschluesse/4560/. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.G-BA. Kinder-Richtlinie: des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Früherkennung von Krankheiten bei Kindern: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA); 2022. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/richtlinien/15/. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Baker MW, Grossman WJ, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL, Brokopp CD, Kurtycz DF, et al. Development of a routine newborn screening protocol for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(3):522–7. Epub 20090531. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2009.04.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Tagliaferri L, Kunz JB, Happich M, Esposito S, Bruckner T, Hubschmann D, et al. Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency using a novel and simplified method to measure T-cell excision circles (TREC). Clin Immunol. 2017;175:51–5. Epub 20161202. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2016.11.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gutierrez-Mateo C, Timonen A, Vaahtera K, Jaakkola M, Hougaard DM, Bybjerg-Grauholm J, et al. Development of a Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay for the Newborn Screening of SCID, SMA, and XLA. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2019;5(4):39. Epub 20191102. doi: 10.3390/ijns5040039 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7510252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.G-BA. Neugeborenen-Screening auf 5q-assoziierte spinale Muskelatrophie: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA). 2020. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/beschluesse/4617/. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Daniel Y, Turner C. Newborn Sickle Cell Disease Screening Using Electrospray Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Int J Neonatal Screen. 2018;4(4):35. Epub 20181124. doi: 10.3390/ijns4040035 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7510227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Piel FB, Howes RE, Patil AP, Nyangiri OA, Gething PW, Bhatt S, et al. The distribution of haemoglobin C and its prevalence in newborns in Africa. Sci Rep. 2013;3:1671. doi: 10.1038/srep01671 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3628164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Onkologie und Hämatologie: AWMF-Leitlinie 025/016 "Sichelzellkrankheit"; 2020. Available from: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/025-016.html.
  • 35.Moat SJ, Rees D, George RS, King L, Dodd A, Ifederu A, et al. Newborn screening for sickle cell disorders using tandem mass spectrometry: three years’ experience of using a protocol to detect only the disease states. Ann Clin Biochem. 2017;54(5):601–11. Epub 20170717. doi: 10.1177/0004563217713788 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.An R, Huang Y, Rocheleau A, Avanaki A, Thota P, Zhang Q, et al. Multispectral imaging for MicroChip electrophoresis enables point-of-care newborn hemoglobin variant screening. Heliyon. 2022;8(12):e11778. Epub 20221128. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11778 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9719904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Chindima N, Nkhoma P, Sinkala M, Zulu M, Kafita D, Simakando M, et al. The Use of Dried Blood Spots: A Potential Tool for the Introduction of a Neonatal Screening Program for Sickle Cell Anemia in Zambia. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2018;8(1):30–2. doi: 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_105_16 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5846216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Okeke CO, Chianumba RI, Isa H, Asala S, Nnodu OE. Using dried blood spot on HemoTypeSC, a new frontier for newborn screening for sickle cell disease in Nigeria. Front Genet. 2022;13:1013858. Epub 20221026. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1013858 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9644131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elsayed Abdelkreem

26 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-32193A high-throughput newborn screening approach for SCID, SMA, and SCD combining multiplex qPCR and tandem mass spectrometryPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tesorero,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we strongly think that your manuscript is well-written and addresses important topic. However, reviewers have several important comments for improving the quality of this manuscript. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Elsayed Abdelkreem, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: “A high-throughput newborn screening approach for SCID, SMA, and SCD combining multiplex qPCR and tandem mass spectrometry“ which has been submitted by Rafael Tesorero, et al. to PLOS ONE, demonstrated the multiplexing capability of the qPCR platform by integrating a primary screen for SCD into an already existing duplex NBS assay for SCID and SMA. Furthermore, they extended the method to easily process with high sample numbers, realizing a high throughput NBS environment.

The authors described state-of-the-art techniques applicable to newborn screening. Many readers (including me!) can learn many things about advances in qPCR primers and probes, as well as sample preparation ingenuity for tandem MS.

Minor issues

(1) The authors did not detail the strength of their high-throughput analysis platform in the Discussion section. They only say something about that in the conclusion paragraph. However, this part should also be highlighted in the Discussion section.

If the Discussion section included the explanation about the high-throughput analysis technology beginning with a sentence such as "For high-throughput analysis, an efficient but easy DNA extraction technique from DBS and simultaneous qPCR measurement of a large number of samples are necessary", then, it would be good for anyone to understand the greatness of the authors’ work. The authors might think that the DNA extraction technique from DBS has been invented by somebody else, and qPCR machine for a large number of samples has already existed, thus they are not qualified to boast of their system. However, I think that the authors could boast of their idea of combination of a good DNA extraction technique and a good qPCR machine.

(2) The authors explained tandem mass spectrometry analysis as the second-tier assay in the Methods section and Results section, and argued its usefulness in the Discussion section.

I learned much knowledge on SCD and its screening with tandem mass spectrometry from their description in this article. Even so, I still have two questions.

① I am wondering why the qPCR-screening-positive infants are not referred to an expert in hematology as soon as possible, without waiting the result of tandem mass spectrometry analysis.

② I am also thinking another possibility that tandem mass spectrometry analysis as the second-tier assay can be replaced by another qPCR assay.

I would like to know how the authors answer to these questions.

(3) In the Methods section, the authors said “The combined TREC and SMN1 assays analysis was performed as previously described [14]”, citing the reference of Taylor et al (2015). However, the primers and probes of the authors were different from those of Taylor et al. In addition, as for SMA screening, the targeting SMN1-specific sequences were different between the authors and Taylor et al.

I think that the authors may have many reasons not to do as Taylor et al. did.

In addition, I am wondering whether the citation of Taylor et al. is proper here.

(4) I also would like to know why the authors use the dual quenchers in TREC and ACTB probes.

Are the dual quenchers essential for multiplexed qPCR? If the authors discussed these points in the Discussion section, it would be very helpful for readers (including me!).

(5) The authors said in the introduction section, “This single nucleotide change can identify the homozygous SMN1 exon 7 deletion present in approximately 95% of SMA cases, and therefore serves as the primary target for early detection of SMA in NBS by qPCR [13]. (lines 73-75)” I am afraid the content of the cited paper (Kubo et al. 2015) was not suitable here.

Reviewer #2: The article by Tesorero et al “A high throughput ……mass spectrometry” is well written and highlights the importance of multiplex PCR technology when it comes to population based high throughput screening. Here authors developed a combined approach for simultaneous SCID, SMA, and 1st-tier SCD screening followed by MS/MS 2nd tier SCD screening. Although adding SCD screening to the SCID/SMA multiplex assay is an unconventional approach since it is not adopted by newborn screening lab to my knowledge at least in the United States. Multiplex assay for SCID and SMA newborn screening is widely known to the newborn community while thin-layer isoelectric focusing (IEF) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) are routine technology most of newborn screening center or program use to perform SCD screening as first tier and second tier respectively. This first tier and second tier test provide SCD screen results with high sensitivity and specificity with some exception (transfused and premature samples). The results presented in this article are provided enough evidence through implementing this multiplex assay in German NBS program and implementing the MS/MS for 2nd tier SCD screening.

The question is whether the approach uses by the German NBS program can become benchmark for other NBS program? There is some sensitivity issue in the multiplex, and also in MS/MS approach as authors noted especially for SCD where initially high background noises prompted specimens for 2nd Tier MS/MS. Although authors able to reduce those false positive to minimum number, sensitivity and specificity will remain questionable for SCD in both 1st and 2nd tier. Also, whether the modification described in the 2nd Tier screening for accuracy to detect all variants related to SCD is well enough to detect all the hemoglobin variants related to SCD when compared to other technology, and whether this approach is cost effective? Authors should discuss more to these points in the article to make clear for the viewers and NBS community.

Here are more comments for authors to address:

1. Authors indicate that “control measurement was introduced to reduce the number SCD positive in 1st tier screening. Authors should include in the article what kind of approach was introduced for multiplex assay to reduce those number? Also, whether those secondary approach that was introduced was manual (person learning) or automated (machine learning) approach?

2. The authors indicates that during the pilot and regular screening combined they have 14 SMA. It is not cleared whether these 14 SMA are either a) just a Positive screen or b) confirmed SMA cases after diagnosis through SMN2 copy and clinical presentation.

Authors should make this statement very clear in the article because if all positive SMA screen doesn’t confirmed by diagnosis and clinical symptoms for SMA disease means some of the positive screenings are due to false positive cases.

Authors should also state somewhere whether their primer /probe designed for SMA screening can differentiate the SMA positive cases with the SMA hybrid cases. SMA hybrid transcript can come as a false positive sometimes depends on the binding of the primers and probes design.

3. Authors also suggest two confirmed SCID and one non-SCID T cell lymphopenia. Authors should write in the article how they come into these conclusions. Whether confirmed diagnosis was performed on those cases?

4. Authors have put lot of emphasis on SCD screening through multiplex with SMA and SCID, and 2nd tier MS/MS. This approach could become an opportunity for many NBS labs to adopt and implement along with already established SMA/SCID multiplex and performed the 2nd tier MS/MS (which is common technology for NBS lab). Authors also acclaimed that this approach can be use as model for point of care diagnostic for SCD as well in less industrialized countries. This is an important point given the disparity in health equity and equality in the NBS screening worldwide. Authors should highlight their view if their approach for SCD screening can reduce the burden in certain countries or races or populations where SCD cases are high.

5. Fig.2. Author indicated HbS allele> cut off whereas in the text (line 236) authors clearly wrote that “for 1st-tier SCD screening, no cutoff was set for HbS allele amplification”. Authors should explain why there are two different statements ( Fig2 vs Text for the same context).

Reviewer #3: In this study, two-tiered approach combining qPCR and MS/MS, has been developed for the diagnosis of SCID, SMA, and the presence of the HBB: c.20A>T allele via multiplex qPCR. The developed assay is promising and will enhance the detection of the target diseases in quite short period of time and with cost effective way. Nevertheless, the manuscript comprises some weaknesses which should be considered by the authors to take it to a better level. Some suggestions are as follow:

1. I would like to see a flow chart of a schematic diagram which summarizes the whole part of materials and methods and better illustrates the techniques implemented in this manuscript.

2. It was stated in line 253 that "data not shown", it will be better if the authors can show these data under the supporting information sections to avoid any misleading and show the bigger picture of their findings. This is crucial as the developed techniques can be implemented for diagnostic applications, and thus steak-holders and scientists would like to be aware about the full image of the authors findings.

3. In line 288, the authors mentioned that the cutoff ratio was set to 0.15 ratio! The selection of this ratio was based on what? Please elaborate more on this point.

4. In line 313: What do you mean by "second analysis"? Please be more specific to avoid any confusion for the reader.

5. I would like to see a separate conclusion section and not integrated under the discussion section.

6. The author should elaborate more about the potential of their developed assay for diagnostic applications and how it will be possible for this assay to be applied in hospitals and health care centers. This is should be under the conclusion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: BINOD KUMAR

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof. Hani A. Alhadrami

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 10;18(3):e0283024. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0283024.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Feb 2023

All comments and questions were addressed in the Reponse to reviewers document.

Reviewer #1:

1. The authors did not detail the strength of their high-throughput analysis platform in the Discussion section. They only say something about that in the conclusion paragraph. However, this part should also be highlighted in the Discussion section.

If the Discussion section included the explanation about the high-throughput analysis technology beginning with a sentence such as "For high-throughput analysis, an efficient but easy DNA extraction technique from DBS and simultaneous qPCR measurement of a large number of samples are necessary", then, it would be good for anyone to understand the greatness of the authors’ work. The authors might think that the DNA extraction technique from DBS has been invented by somebody else, and qPCR machine for a large number of samples has already existed, thus they are not qualified to boast of their system. However, I think that the authors could boast of their idea of combination of a good DNA extraction technique and a good qPCR machine.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback and generous comment. We have strengthened our discussion to emphasize the importance of a well noted DNA extraction and qPCR protocol for a high-throughput laboratory. The changes are as follows (lines 368-371): “To cope with such sample throughput, the qPCR analysis performing the primary screen requires a fast and efficient DNA extraction technique from DBS, an accurate liquid handling system, and a qPCR instrument capable of multi-channel detection in a 384-well format; this was realized in the qPCR method described.”

2. The authors explained tandem mass spectrometry analysis as the second-tier assay in the Methods section and Results section, and argued its usefulness in the Discussion section.

I learned much knowledge on SCD and its screening with tandem mass spectrometry from their description in this article. Even so, I still have two questions.

2.1. I am wondering why the qPCR-screening-positive infants are not referred to an expert in hematology as soon as possible, without waiting the result of tandem mass spectrometry analysis.

Response:

The group of specimens preselected by qPCR contains not only SCD-affected but also those of heterozygous HbS/A individuals (carrier state). The latter must not be reported in Germany after the completed screening process due to the law on genetic diagnostics. Therefore, a differentiation to distinguish HbS/A (carrier state) from the disease state (SCD variants) is mandatory, which is in our case done by MS/MS. Since SCD mostly manifests between three to four months after birth (with the gradual exchange of fetal hemoglobin for adult hemoglobin), the short delay caused due to the two-tiered setup is acceptable (and is also considered in the hematologic guidelines for SCD follow-up in Germany).

We had remarked the necessity for differentiation in our original manuscript in the introduction section, however, your question has indicated to us that this regulation needs to be expressed more clearly and we have therefore reworded the relevant passage

(lines 104- 107): “This, however, also comprises samples of the HbS carrier state, HbS/A. Such individuals are typically asymptomatic and must not be reported due to the German Gene Diagnostics Law [26]. Therefore, a second method is mandatory within the screening process to differentiate HbS/A from the pathogenic SCD variants.”

In addition, we reworded the objective of our manuscript (lines 110-112): “To distinguish the carrier state from specimens with SCD within the preselected HbS-containing samples, and for phenotypic differentiation, an MS/MS assay is used as a 2nd-tier method.”

Furthermore, we follow the guidelines stablished by the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology for SCD screening. We added the following statement in the discussion section (lines 392-396): “According to Guideline 025/016 of the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology, the confirmatory analysis performed as part of the follow-up of SCD patients should have been performed by the 28th day of life [34]. This requirement can be effortlessly met even with an additional qPCR and a weekly 2nd-tier analysis in NBS.”

2.2. I am also thinking another possibility that tandem mass spectrometry analysis as the second-tier assay can be replaced by another qPCR assay.

Response:

You are correct, a second, more specific qPCR assay to determine SCD variants could be used. Theoretically, any method may be used as second tier method that fulfills two requirements: a) enabling to sort out heterozygous HbS/A specimens (carrier state, compare response to 2.1) and b) identify relevant variants of SCD. Typical established methods to achieve this are HPLC or capillary electrophoresis (or MS/MS), but a qPCR method applying probes designed to identify nucleotide sequences specific for the relevant HBB variants might be usable too. However, qPCR can be limited to the number of targets that can be simultaneously be detected based on technology availability.

We expanded our discussion section to highlight that other platforms could be used for the 2nd-tier analysis (lines 433-443): “While the screening approach combining multiplexed qPCR and MS/MS is the most suitable for our laboratory, the entailed component of two-tiered SCD screening could be adapted depending on the respective surrounding conditions, e.g., as standalone approach without SCID and SMA screening or in combination with another differentiation method. For the latter case, any method that is capable of distinguishing heterozygous carriers and SCD variants could be applied. Instrumental platforms typically used for such purposes as mentioned in the introduction (e.g., CE, HPLC, or MS/MS) are usually complex and costly. However, in this respect, qPCR-based primary screening for HbS alleles and thus reducing the sample size to a group of specimens relevant to further investigations might be a promising approach to open SCD screening to less complicated and/or inexpensive methods, such as chip-based microelectrophoresis, aqueous multi-phase systems based on cell density measurements, lateral flow immunoassays, or even classical electrophoresis [23, 36-38]”

3. In the Methods section, the authors said “The combined TREC and SMN1 assays analysis was performed as previously described [14]”, citing the reference of Taylor et al (2015). However, the primers and probes of the authors were different from those of Taylor et al. In addition, as for SMA screening, the targeting SMN1-specific sequences were different between the authors and Taylor et al.

I think that the authors may have many reasons not to do as Taylor et al. did.

In addition, I am wondering whether the citation of Taylor et al. is proper here.

Response:

Taylor et al. was the first peer reviewed publication on a combined SCID and SMA screening, and we used the LNA modifications and annealing temperature observations as a reference. Indeed, several of our oligos differ from the publications cited (line 165). We have kept the citation but changed the wording in our sentence to indicate how the aforementioned publications were used as a reference (lines 161-165): “The combined TREC and SMN1 analysis and the allele-specific PCR for the HbS mutation have been previously described [14]. Some of the oligos for TREC, SMN1, ACTB, and HBB: c.20A>T allele (hereinafter referred to as HbS allele) were based on previously described versions or have been modified thereof (Table 1) [14, 24, 28, 30].”

4. I also would like to know why the authors use the dual quenchers in TREC and ACTB probes.

Are the dual quenchers essential for multiplexed qPCR? If the authors discussed these points in the Discussion section, it would be very helpful for readers (including me!).

Response:

Before the implementation of our aforementioned quadruplex assay, we utilized the duplex TREC assay. During its optimization, we observed high background and decreased sensitivity with the FAM-labeled probe. IDT, the company we chose for the synthesis of our oligos, recommended that we utilize the double-quenched probes, which we did. This led to an observable improvement, followed by our TREC assay being accredited for SCID NBS by the German accreditation body (Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle, DAkkS). Therefore, we kept the same modifications for future applications. Since the focus of our discussion is not the TREC assay, we decided not to mention nor focus on this aspect in the discussion section. However, we have included a statement under qPCR design to address the reviewer’s question (lines 159-161): “The TREC assay was first implemented and accredited for SCID screening in our laboratory in August 2018 and was based on previously described methods [28, 29]. Upon implementation of the new diseases, we kept the same TREC assay probes and modified our protocol accordingly.”

5. The authors said in the introduction section, “This single nucleotide change can identify the homozygous SMN1 exon 7 deletion present in approximately 95% of SMA cases, and therefore serves as the primary target for early detection of SMA in NBS by qPCR [13]. (lines 73-75)” I am afraid the content of the cited paper (Kubo et al. 2015) was not suitable here.

Response:

Noted and thank you for the observation, as Kubo et al. focused on intragenic mutations and hybrid SMN genes. We have replaced Kubo et al. with Arnold et al. 2015 as a more suitable citation (line 77).

Reviewer #2:

(…) The results presented in this article are provided enough evidence through implementing this multiplex assay in German NBS program and implementing the MS/MS for 2nd tier SCD screening. The question is whether the approach uses by the German NBS program can become benchmark for other NBS program?

1. There is some sensitivity issue in the multiplex, and also in MS/MS approach as authors noted especially for SCD where initially high background noises prompted specimens for 2nd Tier MS/MS. Although authors able to reduce those false positive to minimum number, sensitivity and specificity will remain questionable for SCD in both 1st and 2nd tier. Also, whether the modification described in the 2nd Tier screening for accuracy to detect all variants related to SCD is well enough to detect all the hemoglobin variants related to SCD when compared to other technology, and whether this approach is cost effective? Authors should discuss more to these points in the article to make clear for the viewers and NBS community.

Response:

Thank you very much for raising these important aspects. In our manuscript, we describe a screening approach and also address changes we adopted from the initial learning process during the pilot phase (added subsection, line 318). With our revision of the discussion section, we have taken up most of the aspects you mentioned. Nevertheless, we also add some thoughts about the points raised here:

• Our SCD screening approach has to be considered as a combination of qPCR and MS/MS methods which are required to be operated successional within a two-stage analytical process. Therefore, Wildtype samples that have passed the qPCR in 1st-tier, will always be detected in the 2nd-tier MS/MS. The numbers we gave on samples forwarded from 1st to 2nd tier due to “initially high background noises”, were to illustrate the learning process during the pilot phase and optimizations we implemented for routine screening later on. But these would not affect a “false positive” rate in a sense of a screening outcome. We have reworded the corresponding paragraphs to make this clearer (lines 386-392): “Nevertheless, lessons learned during the pilot phase helped to further optimize the workflow for regular SCD screening: Initially, samples screened positive for presence of HbS alleles by qPCR were automatically flagged for 2nd-tier analysis after their first measurement; in this stage, approximately 29% of these suspicious samples were flagged due to high background noise or artefacts effects only. After a second qPCR measurement for already flagged samples had been introduced into our workflow, this share could be substantially reduced to 2.6% in regular screening leading to smaller sample sequences in the 2nd-tier analyses.”

• In Germany, the final target in SCD screening typically is the disease state “SCD”. A further differentiation is typically not required because screening results are regarded consumptive until they are confirmed in follow-up, which is obligatory performed in specialized centers (lines 418-419): “In Germany, this classification is performed during follow-up in specialized hematology centers.”

Nevertheless, in our original manuscript, we already further differentiated outcome of the SCD types in our screening and added previously published data on diagnostic validation for MS/MS in the revision, but i) missing genotypes due to their rarity and ii) the fact that our screening approach is only running for a short time now makes it difficult to create a meaningful statement on selectivity and specificity. We reworded and added the following in the discussion section (lines 411-418): “As expected, the MS/MS assay successfully distinguished the HbS carrier state from SCD variants, so that only the latter were reported. Figures for diagnostic sensitivity (95.8-100%) and selectivity (98.7-100%) depending on SCD variants have been reported earlier for the kit’s principal target conditions in NBS laboratories with corresponding cutoff values for variants-to-wildtype ratios (other than HbS/HbA) as used here [21]. In such considerations, the SCD variants that respond with the same diagnostic ratios, i.e., HbS/HbA for SCD-S/S, SCD-S/β0 thalassemia, and SCD due to combined HbS and hereditary persistence of fetal hemoglobin are grouped together, as their classification by genotype can be equivocal [19].”

• Regarding the cost effectiveness, we would like to leave it at the qualitative statements that we added in the discussion, because this topic can quickly be subjected to political use in authorities within the German health care system (lines 426-432): “The drastic reduction of samples from 1st to 2nd-tier analysis mentioned above also translates into a more cost-effective operation compared to a scenario in which the full number of incoming samples would be analyzed by MS/MS (or HPLC, or CE): In the latter case, at least three analytical systems would be necessary to perform the daily work (not to mention personnel, consumables, chemicals). In contrast, in our approach the daily work (qPCR) can be managed by the same staff who did the nucleic acid-based SCID screening before the inclusion of SMA and SCD screening. For the 2nd-tier analyses a single MS-system is sufficient, which is run once a week.”

2. Authors indicate that a “control measurement was introduced to reduce the number SCD positive in 1st tier screening. Authors should include in the article what kind of approach was introduced for multiplex assay to reduce those number? Also, whether those secondary approach that was introduced was manual (person learning) or automated (machine learning) approach?

Response:

Before we get to the question about the control measurement, we would like to address that there are no “SCD positives” after 1st tier screening (please compare to question No 1). In our qPCR 1st-tier, specimens get flagged when “HbS alleles” are detected which does not necessarily indicate SCD. We reworded and expanded a section of our introduction to emphasize this point (lines 102-107): “This raises the option to adapt such an approach as an initial screening so that it can be integrated into an existing multiplexed high-throughput qPCR environment to detect all specimens containing HbS alleles. This, however, also comprises samples of the HbS carrier state, HbS/A. Such individuals are typically asymptomatic and must not be reported due to the German Gene Diagnostics Law [26]. Therefore, a second method is mandatory within the screening process to differentiate HbS/A from the pathogenic SCD variants.”

The term “control measurement” indicates here a repeat measurement of corresponding samples. This was the most straightforward way to check if the result for a specimen was reproducible. For most screen positives obtained in qPCR, such an approach would not be necessary because the corresponding analytical response is obvious. However, for the samples which were (likely) flagged due to high background noise, a repeated analysis was helpful. In routine operation, we did nevertheless include the repetition for all samples flagged as screen positives in 1st tier to facilitate the workflow for the technical staff.

To express this more clearly in the manuscript we reworded and expanded the following in the results section (lines 335-340): “In reproducibility tests, it was found that such samples could be identified in most cases by repetition of the qPCR analyses from two new DBS. Technically, in our screening approach, samples that may be erroneously flagged as suspicious for SCD due to high background noise would be identified during 2nd tier analysis in any case. Nevertheless, a control measurement by qPCR was introduced after the pilot phase for any suspicious sample to reduce the number of such cases and facilitate the routine workflow for the technical staff.”

3. The authors indicate that during the pilot and regular screening combined they have 14 SMA. It is not cleared whether these 14 SMA are either a) just a Positive screen or b) confirmed SMA cases after diagnosis through SMN2 copy and clinical presentation.

Authors should make this statement very clear in the article because if all positive SMA screen doesn’t confirmed by diagnosis and clinical symptoms for SMA disease means some of the positive screenings are due to false positive cases.

Authors should also state somewhere whether their primer /probe designed for SMA screening can differentiate the SMA positive cases with the SMA hybrid cases. SMA hybrid transcript can come as a false positive sometimes depends on the binding of the primers and probes design.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out, as we did not explain enough how the cases were confirmed. All positive screened SMN1 exon7 deletion patients were confirmed on specialized centers outside the NBS and we also mentioned (lines 327) that as of today we have not reported false positive or false negative cases. To make it clearer to the reader, we reworded the following in the screening results section (lines 325-328): “…the absence of the SMN1 exon 7 was verified, with further confirmation of an SMA diagnosis in specialized accredited centers with further SMN2 copy number determination. In the same period, no false negative or false positive SMN1 exon 7 deletions were reported.”

We also refer in the introduction (lines 75-77) that SMA screening is based on the SMN1 exon7 deletion assay, which can detect up to 95% of the cases. Furthermore, SMA screening is performed with accordance the German law stablished by the G-BA (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Federal Joint Committee). We added in the materials and methods section the following (lines 167-170): “SMA screening is performed in accordance with the recommendation from the German Joint Federal Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundsausschuss, G-BA) [31]. The screening is based on the homologous SMN1 exon 7 deletion (also known as 5q-linked SMA) assay by targeting the c.840C>T single nucleotide variant.”

4. Authors also suggest two confirmed SCID and one non-SCID T cell lymphopenia. Authors should write in the article how they come into these conclusions. Whether confirmed diagnosis was performed on those cases?

Response:

The SCID and non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia cases were confirmed in specialized centers across Germany. The confirmation and diagnosis are done outside the NBS. We emphasize this point by rewording and adding the following in the discussion section (lines 373-375): “…which resulted in two SCID, one non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia, 14 SMA, and 24 SCD diagnoses, which were each confirmed after referral of the patients for follow-up to specialized and approved centers by the G-BA.”

5. Authors have put lot of emphasis on SCD screening through multiplex with SMA and SCID, and 2nd tier MS/MS. This approach could become an opportunity for many NBS labs to adopt and implement along with already established SMA/SCID multiplex and performed the 2nd tier MS/MS (which is common technology for NBS lab). Authors also acclaimed that this approach can be use as model for point of care diagnostic for SCD as well in less industrialized countries. This is an important point given the disparity in health equity and equality in the NBS screening worldwide. Authors should highlight their view if their approach for SCD screening can reduce the burden in certain countries or races or populations where SCD cases are high.

Response:

In our closing sentence in the conclusions of the first manuscript version, we mentioned POC and the opportunity to adapt the SCD screening with a different 2nd-tier method for less industrialized countries. After internal discussions and reflection, we decided to remove the POC topic, because our method is intended for screening larger cohorts, which does not fit into the context of “bedside testing”.

Then again, we added a paragraph at the end of the discussion section, in which we discuss options, how qPCR might be combined with other analytical approaches to reduce the costs and possibly enable screening in less industrialized countries. We understand this as a perspective paragraph giving a thought-provoking statement for the SCD screening community (lines 433-443): “While the screening approach combining multiplexed qPCR and MS/MS is the most suitable for our laboratory, the entailed component of two-tiered SCD screening could be adapted depending on the respective surrounding conditions, e.g., as standalone approach without SCID and SMA screening or in combination with another differentiation method. For the latter case, any method that is capable of distinguishing heterozygous carriers and SCD variants could be applied. Instrumental platforms typically used for such purposes as mentioned in the introduction (e.g., CE, HPLC, or MS/MS) are usually complex and costly. However, in this respect, qPCR-based primary screening for HbS alleles and thus reducing the sample size to a group of specimens relevant to further investigations might be a promising approach to open SCD screening to less complicated and/or inexpensive methods, such as chip-based microelectrophoresis, aqueous multi-phase systems based on cell density measurements, lateral flow immunoassays, or even classical electrophoresis [23, 36-38].

6. Fig.2. Author indicated HbS allele> cut off whereas in the text (line 236) authors clearly wrote that “for 1st-tier SCD screening, no cutoff was set for HbS allele amplification”. Authors should explain why there are two different statements ( Fig2 vs Text for the same context).

Response:

Thank you for calling our attention to this error. The statement, that there was no cutoff established for 1st tier SCD screening is correct. Only the instrumental threshold, i.e. a binary yes/no result, was applied to flag specimens for presence of HbS alleles and necessity for 2nd tier analysis. We have modified figure 2 (see below) accordingly and changed the term “cutoff” for “threshold”.

Reviewer #3:

In this study, two-tiered approach combining qPCR and MS/MS, has been developed for the diagnosis of SCID, SMA, and the presence of the HBB: c.20A>T allele via multiplex qPCR. The developed assay is promising and will enhance the detection of the target diseases in quite short period of time and with cost effective way. Nevertheless, the manuscript comprises some weaknesses which should be considered by the authors to take it to a better level. Some suggestions are as follow:

1. I would like to see a flow chart of a schematic diagram which summarizes the whole part of materials and methods and better illustrates the techniques implemented in this manuscript.

Response:

The materials and methods section gives a detailed explanation of the techniques applied. Nevertheless, we have included S1 Figure (shown below) in the supporting information which summarizes our screening process. We added in line 233: “The methodical workflows are illustrated in S1 Figure.”

2. It was stated in line 253 that "data not shown", it will be better if the authors can show these data under the supporting information sections to avoid any misleading and show the bigger picture of their findings. This is crucial as the developed techniques can be implemented for diagnostic applications, and thus steak-holders and scientists would like to be aware about the full image of the authors findings.

Response:

Thank you for pointing out this – of course it is helpful to show such data and further support the statement about the specificity of the probe towards the HbS allele instead of the HbC sequence. We have prepared extra amplification plots acquired for corresponding samples (three HbC/A and one HbC/C) and added it in the SI (S3 Figure, see below). In addition, we have included a supporting table presenting the results for the MS/MS based diagnostic ratios of the same samples (S4 Table).

This section (lines 266-268) has been reworded to: “As depicted in S3 Figure, our multiplex assay did not amplify any HbC specimens that did not contain the HbS allele (results obtained for the same samples applying the MS/MS assay are given in S4 Table).

And reworded the following in the discussion section (lines 383-386): “Moreover, the designed probe for the HbS allele proved to be highly specific, as it failed to hybridize with a HbC homozygous sample and several HbC heterozygous carriers. The genetic variant for HbC (HBB: c.19G>A) occurs at the same codon as for HbS (HBB: c.20A>T), but its presence did not affect our assay [33].”

3. In line 288, the authors mentioned that the cutoff ratio was set to 0.15 ratio! The selection of this ratio was based on what? Please elaborate more on this point.

Response:

Thank you for raising this point, especially as the term "cutoff" can be misleading in the context presented here. Our 2nd-tier analysis aims for two major goals: 1) to distinguish between carrier (=HbS/A) and pathological states of SCD and 2) identify certain forms of SCD. Both require “cutoff” or action-values for the respective variant / wildtype ratios as presented in supporting information (S3 Table).

A differentiation between wild type (HbA/A) and HbS/A with MS/MS is typically not necessary for us, because wildtype specimens are sorted out by qPCR. However, a value of 0.15 for the HbS/HbA ratios in MS/MS can be used to distinguish wild type and HbS/A. The values are based on results obtained during method development as well as previously published studies, in which MS/MS was used as standalone screening method for SCD. In our case, it could be regarded as a tool for quality assurance. We have reworded the section (lines 303-309) to express it more clearly: “In our combined screening approach, wildtype samples are usually sorted out after the qPCR assay. However, for internal quality assurance and the option to categorize screen negative samples, threshold levels of 0.15 were set for both HbS/HbA ratios based on previously published data and results obtained using the MS/MS method on wildtype samples during method development. For the other diagnostic signal ratios (HbC/HbA, HbE/HbA, etc.), previously published action values were used [21].”

4. In line 313: What do you mean by "second analysis"? Please be more specific to avoid any confusion for the reader.

Response:

Here, we were referring to the 2nd tier method. However, in response to Reviewer 2's question 2 about the control measurements, this paragraph has been edited and also this passage expressed more clearly. The changes are as follow (lines 335-338): “In reproducibility tests, it was found that such samples could be identified in most cases by repetition of the qPCR analyses from two new DBS. Technically, in our screening approach, samples that may be erroneously flagged as suspicious for SCD due to high background noise would be identified during 2nd tier analysis in any case.”

5. I would like to see a separate conclusion section and not integrated under the discussion section.

Response:

We have separated the conclusions into a special section (line 445).

6. The author should elaborate more about the potential of their developed assay for diagnostic applications and how it will be possible for this assay to be applied in hospitals and health care centers. This is should be under the conclusion section.

Response:

The presented method is intended for NBS. In Germany, all diagnoses given in NBS are regarded as presumptive. Confirmation and definitive diagnosis are done outside the NBS in specialized centers. This is part of the legal framework in German health care system.

During the revision progress, we have set more emphasis on this regulation where necessary, but the fact that screening makes sense only for very large cohorts, we would prefer not to open the discussion to the potential use of our described method in hospitals or health care centers. Nevertheless, we picked up the point of altering the method for less industrialized countries and would, in this respect, kindly refer to question 5 of the second reviewer.

Decision Letter 1

Elsayed Abdelkreem

1 Mar 2023

A high-throughput newborn screening approach for SCID, SMA, and SCD combining multiplex qPCR and tandem mass spectrometry

PONE-D-22-32193R1

Dear Dr. Tesorero,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Elsayed Abdelkreem, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with revisions that have been made by the authors. The authors have addressed all the critiques raised by this reviewer.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing most of the queries related to the article. I believe with this improvement and additions, the MS is well read and may benefit to the NBS community.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Binod Kumar

**********

Acceptance letter

Elsayed Abdelkreem

3 Mar 2023

PONE-D-22-32193R1

A high-throughput newborn screening approach for SCID, SMA, and SCD combining multiplex qPCR and tandem mass spectrometry

Dear Dr. Tesorero:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Elsayed Abdelkreem

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Workflow representing the tasks for sample preparation and analysis.

    (A) For the qPCR-based approach for SCID, SMA and 1st-tier SCD newborn screening. (B) For the MS/MS-based differentiation for 2nd-tier SCD newborn screening. This figure is accompanying the decision workflow depicted in Fig 2 of the main manuscript; prepared with Inkscape (1.2.2).

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Mass spectra for the HbS bT1 peptide (Parent Ion) acquired in MS1 scan and its y7-fragment (daughter Ion) acquired in MS2 scan.

    All spectra were recorded in ‘Multi Channel Analysis’ mode Acquisition during 30 s with cycle time set to automatic and 2.0 s scan duration. The spectra were obtained by infusing solutions of the peptide (1.0 μg/mL) dissolved in an acetonitrile-based (solid line) and methanol-based (dotted) mobile phase.

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Amplification plots for four exemplary HbC-containing specimens devoid of HbS (three HbC/A and one HbC/C).

    The signal for the HbS allele is not amplified in any of the samples. The corresponding MS/MS results are shown in S4 Table.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. Quality controls (QCs) composition used in the qPCR assay.

    Bovine RBC was 1:2 diluted with TE buffer pH 8.0 and different synthetic dsDNA (gBlocks, IDT) were used to spike the different QCs. RBC: Red blood cells.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Targeted Hb-mutations, assigned mass transitions, and optimized MS parameters used in the 2nd tier instrumental analysis.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. Diagnostic ratios used in the 2nd tier MS/MS method, the mass transitions for their calculation, and the action values applied.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Diagnostic ratios obtained with the MS/MS assay for the four HbC-containing specimens corresponding to the amplification plots depicted in S3 Fig.

    (PDF)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES