Cargando…
Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies
The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina’s HiSeq2000, Life Technologies...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679043/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23776689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066621 |
_version_ | 1782272942076329984 |
---|---|
author | Rieber, Nora Zapatka, Marc Lasitschka, Bärbel Jones, David Northcott, Paul Hutter, Barbara Jäger, Natalie Kool, Marcel Taylor, Michael Lichter, Peter Pfister, Stefan Wolf, Stephan Brors, Benedikt Eils, Roland |
author_facet | Rieber, Nora Zapatka, Marc Lasitschka, Bärbel Jones, David Northcott, Paul Hutter, Barbara Jäger, Natalie Kool, Marcel Taylor, Michael Lichter, Peter Pfister, Stefan Wolf, Stephan Brors, Benedikt Eils, Roland |
author_sort | Rieber, Nora |
collection | PubMed |
description | The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina’s HiSeq2000, Life Technologies’ SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics’ technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies’ platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3679043 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36790432013-06-17 Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies Rieber, Nora Zapatka, Marc Lasitschka, Bärbel Jones, David Northcott, Paul Hutter, Barbara Jäger, Natalie Kool, Marcel Taylor, Michael Lichter, Peter Pfister, Stefan Wolf, Stephan Brors, Benedikt Eils, Roland PLoS One Research Article The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina’s HiSeq2000, Life Technologies’ SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics’ technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies’ platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes. Public Library of Science 2013-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3679043/ /pubmed/23776689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066621 Text en © 2013 Rieber 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 Rieber, Nora Zapatka, Marc Lasitschka, Bärbel Jones, David Northcott, Paul Hutter, Barbara Jäger, Natalie Kool, Marcel Taylor, Michael Lichter, Peter Pfister, Stefan Wolf, Stephan Brors, Benedikt Eils, Roland Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title | Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title_full | Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title_fullStr | Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title_full_unstemmed | Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title_short | Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies |
title_sort | coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679043/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23776689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066621 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT riebernora coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT zapatkamarc coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT lasitschkabarbel coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT jonesdavid coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT northcottpaul coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT hutterbarbara coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT jagernatalie coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT koolmarcel coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT taylormichael coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT lichterpeter coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT pfisterstefan coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT wolfstephan coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT brorsbenedikt coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT eilsroland coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies |