Cargando…
Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms
Next-generation sequencing technologies enable the rapid cost-effective production of sequence data. To evaluate the performance of these sequencing technologies, investigation of the quality of sequence reads obtained from these methods is important. In this study, we analyzed the quality of sequen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21611185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019534 |
_version_ | 1782203739212349440 |
---|---|
author | Suzuki, Shingo Ono, Naoaki Furusawa, Chikara Ying, Bei-Wen Yomo, Tetsuya |
author_facet | Suzuki, Shingo Ono, Naoaki Furusawa, Chikara Ying, Bei-Wen Yomo, Tetsuya |
author_sort | Suzuki, Shingo |
collection | PubMed |
description | Next-generation sequencing technologies enable the rapid cost-effective production of sequence data. To evaluate the performance of these sequencing technologies, investigation of the quality of sequence reads obtained from these methods is important. In this study, we analyzed the quality of sequence reads and SNP detection performance using three commercially available next-generation sequencers, i.e., Roche Genome Sequencer FLX System (FLX), Illumina Genome Analyzer (GA), and Applied Biosystems SOLiD system (SOLiD). A common genomic DNA sample obtained from Escherichia coli strain DH1 was applied to these sequencers. The obtained sequence reads were aligned to the complete genome sequence of E. coli DH1, to evaluate the accuracy and sequence bias of these sequence methods. We found that the fraction of “junk” data, which could not be aligned to the reference genome, was largest in the data set of SOLiD, in which about half of reads could not be aligned. Among data sets after alignment to the reference, sequence accuracy was poorest in GA data sets, suggesting relatively low fidelity of the elongation reaction in the GA method. Furthermore, by aligning the sequence reads to the E. coli strain W3110, we screened sequence differences between two E. coli strains using data sets of three different next-generation platforms. The results revealed that the detected sequence differences were similar among these three methods, while the sequence coverage required for the detection was significantly small in the FLX data set. These results provided valuable information on the quality of short sequence reads and the performance of SNP detection in three next-generation sequencing platforms. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-3096631 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-30966312011-05-24 Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms Suzuki, Shingo Ono, Naoaki Furusawa, Chikara Ying, Bei-Wen Yomo, Tetsuya PLoS One Research Article Next-generation sequencing technologies enable the rapid cost-effective production of sequence data. To evaluate the performance of these sequencing technologies, investigation of the quality of sequence reads obtained from these methods is important. In this study, we analyzed the quality of sequence reads and SNP detection performance using three commercially available next-generation sequencers, i.e., Roche Genome Sequencer FLX System (FLX), Illumina Genome Analyzer (GA), and Applied Biosystems SOLiD system (SOLiD). A common genomic DNA sample obtained from Escherichia coli strain DH1 was applied to these sequencers. The obtained sequence reads were aligned to the complete genome sequence of E. coli DH1, to evaluate the accuracy and sequence bias of these sequence methods. We found that the fraction of “junk” data, which could not be aligned to the reference genome, was largest in the data set of SOLiD, in which about half of reads could not be aligned. Among data sets after alignment to the reference, sequence accuracy was poorest in GA data sets, suggesting relatively low fidelity of the elongation reaction in the GA method. Furthermore, by aligning the sequence reads to the E. coli strain W3110, we screened sequence differences between two E. coli strains using data sets of three different next-generation platforms. The results revealed that the detected sequence differences were similar among these three methods, while the sequence coverage required for the detection was significantly small in the FLX data set. These results provided valuable information on the quality of short sequence reads and the performance of SNP detection in three next-generation sequencing platforms. Public Library of Science 2011-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC3096631/ /pubmed/21611185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019534 Text en Suzuki et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Suzuki, Shingo Ono, Naoaki Furusawa, Chikara Ying, Bei-Wen Yomo, Tetsuya Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title | Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title_full | Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title_short | Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms |
title_sort | comparison of sequence reads obtained from three next-generation sequencing platforms |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21611185 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019534 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT suzukishingo comparisonofsequencereadsobtainedfromthreenextgenerationsequencingplatforms AT ononaoaki comparisonofsequencereadsobtainedfromthreenextgenerationsequencingplatforms AT furusawachikara comparisonofsequencereadsobtainedfromthreenextgenerationsequencingplatforms AT yingbeiwen comparisonofsequencereadsobtainedfromthreenextgenerationsequencingplatforms AT yomotetsuya comparisonofsequencereadsobtainedfromthreenextgenerationsequencingplatforms |