Cargando…

An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes

BACKGROUND: With the development of new technology, it has recently become practical to resequence the genome of a bacterium after experimental manipulation. It is critical though to know the accuracy of the technique used, and to establish confidence that all of the mutations were detected. RESULTS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Herring, Christopher D, Palsson, Bernhard Ø
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-274
_version_ 1782137811164463104
author Herring, Christopher D
Palsson, Bernhard Ø
author_facet Herring, Christopher D
Palsson, Bernhard Ø
author_sort Herring, Christopher D
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With the development of new technology, it has recently become practical to resequence the genome of a bacterium after experimental manipulation. It is critical though to know the accuracy of the technique used, and to establish confidence that all of the mutations were detected. RESULTS: In order to evaluate the accuracy of genome resequencing using the microarray-based Comparative Genome Sequencing service provided by Nimblegen Systems Inc., we resequenced the E. coli strain W3110 Kohara using MG1655 as a reference, both of which have been completely sequenced using traditional sequencing methods. CGS detected 7 of 8 small sequence differences, one large deletion, and 9 of 12 IS element insertions present in W3110, but did not detect a large chromosomal inversion. In addition, we confirmed that CGS also detected 2 SNPs, one deletion and 7 IS element insertions that are not present in the genome sequence, which we attribute to changes that occurred after the creation of the W3110 lambda clone library. The false positive rate for SNPs was one per 244 Kb of genome sequence. CONCLUSION: CGS is an effective way to detect multiple mutations present in one bacterium relative to another, and while highly cost-effective, is prone to certain errors. Mutations occurring in repeated sequences or in sequences with a high degree of secondary structure may go undetected. It is also critical to follow up on regions of interest in which SNPs were not called because they often indicate deletions or IS element insertions.
format Text
id pubmed-2072959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2007
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-20729592007-11-10 An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes Herring, Christopher D Palsson, Bernhard Ø BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: With the development of new technology, it has recently become practical to resequence the genome of a bacterium after experimental manipulation. It is critical though to know the accuracy of the technique used, and to establish confidence that all of the mutations were detected. RESULTS: In order to evaluate the accuracy of genome resequencing using the microarray-based Comparative Genome Sequencing service provided by Nimblegen Systems Inc., we resequenced the E. coli strain W3110 Kohara using MG1655 as a reference, both of which have been completely sequenced using traditional sequencing methods. CGS detected 7 of 8 small sequence differences, one large deletion, and 9 of 12 IS element insertions present in W3110, but did not detect a large chromosomal inversion. In addition, we confirmed that CGS also detected 2 SNPs, one deletion and 7 IS element insertions that are not present in the genome sequence, which we attribute to changes that occurred after the creation of the W3110 lambda clone library. The false positive rate for SNPs was one per 244 Kb of genome sequence. CONCLUSION: CGS is an effective way to detect multiple mutations present in one bacterium relative to another, and while highly cost-effective, is prone to certain errors. Mutations occurring in repeated sequences or in sequences with a high degree of secondary structure may go undetected. It is also critical to follow up on regions of interest in which SNPs were not called because they often indicate deletions or IS element insertions. BioMed Central 2007-08-14 /pmc/articles/PMC2072959/ /pubmed/17697331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-274 Text en Copyright © 2007 Herring and Palsson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Herring, Christopher D
Palsson, Bernhard Ø
An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title_full An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title_fullStr An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title_short An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
title_sort evaluation of comparative genome sequencing (cgs) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697331
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-8-274
work_keys_str_mv AT herringchristopherd anevaluationofcomparativegenomesequencingcgsbycomparingtwopreviouslysequencedbacterialgenomes
AT palssonbernhardø anevaluationofcomparativegenomesequencingcgsbycomparingtwopreviouslysequencedbacterialgenomes
AT herringchristopherd evaluationofcomparativegenomesequencingcgsbycomparingtwopreviouslysequencedbacterialgenomes
AT palssonbernhardø evaluationofcomparativegenomesequencingcgsbycomparingtwopreviouslysequencedbacterialgenomes