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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |