RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become an indispensable tool to identify disease associated transcriptional profiles and determine the molecular underpinnings of diseases. However, the broad adaptation of the methodology into the clinic is still hampered by inconsistent results from different RNA-seq protocols and involves further evaluation of its analytical reliability using patient samples. Here, we applied two commonly used RNA-seq library preparation protocols to samples from acute leukemia patients to understand how poly-A-tailed mRNA selection (PA) and ribo-depletion (RD) based RNA-seq library preparation protocols affect gene fusion detection, variant calling, and gene expression profiling. Overall, the protocols produced similar results with consistent outcomes. Nevertheless, the PA protocol was more efficient in quantifying expression of leukemia marker genes and showed better performance in the expression-based classification of leukemia. Independent qRT-PCR experiments verified that the PA protocol better represented total RNA compared to the RD protocol. In contrast, the RD protocol detected a higher number of non-coding RNA features and had better alignment efficiency. The RD protocol also recovered more known fusion-gene events, although variability was seen in fusion gene predictions. The overall findings provide a framework for the use of RNA-seq in a precision medicine setting with limited number of samples and suggest that selection of the library preparation protocol should be based on the objectives of the analysis.

Linked-read sequencing was developed to aid the detection of large structural variants (SVs) from short-read sequencing efforts. We performed a systematic evaluation to determine if linked-read exome sequencing provides more comprehensive and clinically relevant information than whole-exome sequencing (WES) when applied to the same set of multiple myeloma patient samples. We report that linked-read sequencing detected a higher number of SVs (n = 18,455) than WES (n = 4065). However, linked-read predictions were dominated by inversions (92.4%), leading to poor detection of other types of SVs. In contrast, WES detected 56.3% deletions, 32.6% insertions, 6.7% translocations, 3.3% duplications and 1.2% inversions. Surprisingly, the quantitative performance assessment suggested a higher performance for WES (AUC = 0.791) compared to linked-read sequencing (AUC = 0.766) for detecting clinically validated cytogenetic alterations. We also found that linked-read sequencing detected more short variants (n = 704) compared to WES (n = 109). WES detected somatic mutations in all MM-related genes while linked-read sequencing failed to detect certain mutations. The comparison of somatic mutations detected using linked-read, WES and RNA-seq revealed that WES and RNA-seq detected more mutations than linked-read sequencing. These data indicate that WES outperforms and is more efficient than linked-read sequencing for detecting clinically relevant SVs and MM-specific short variants.