Cargando…
Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing
BACKGROUND: Recent developments in deep (next-generation) sequencing technologies are significantly impacting medical research. The global analysis of protein coding regions in genomes of interest by whole exome sequencing is a widely used application. Many technologies for exome capture are commerc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4092227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24912484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-449 |
_version_ | 1782325467886387200 |
---|---|
author | Chilamakuri, Chandra Sekhar Reddy Lorenz, Susanne Madoui, Mohammed-Amin Vodák, Daniel Sun, Jinchang Hovig, Eivind Myklebost, Ola Meza-Zepeda, Leonardo A |
author_facet | Chilamakuri, Chandra Sekhar Reddy Lorenz, Susanne Madoui, Mohammed-Amin Vodák, Daniel Sun, Jinchang Hovig, Eivind Myklebost, Ola Meza-Zepeda, Leonardo A |
author_sort | Chilamakuri, Chandra Sekhar Reddy |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recent developments in deep (next-generation) sequencing technologies are significantly impacting medical research. The global analysis of protein coding regions in genomes of interest by whole exome sequencing is a widely used application. Many technologies for exome capture are commercially available; here we compare the performance of four of them: NimbleGen’s SeqCap EZ v3.0, Agilent’s SureSelect v4.0, Illumina’s TruSeq Exome, and Illumina’s Nextera Exome, all applied to the same human tumor DNA sample. RESULTS: Each capture technology was evaluated for its coverage of different exome databases, target coverage efficiency, GC bias, sensitivity in single nucleotide variant detection, sensitivity in small indel detection, and technical reproducibility. In general, all technologies performed well; however, our data demonstrated small, but consistent differences between the four capture technologies. Illumina technologies cover more bases in coding and untranslated regions. Furthermore, whereas most of the technologies provide reduced coverage in regions with low or high GC content, the Nextera technology tends to bias towards target regions with high GC content. CONCLUSIONS: We show key differences in performance between the four technologies. Our data should help researchers who are planning exome sequencing to select appropriate exome capture technology for their particular application. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-449) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4092227 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40922272014-07-21 Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing Chilamakuri, Chandra Sekhar Reddy Lorenz, Susanne Madoui, Mohammed-Amin Vodák, Daniel Sun, Jinchang Hovig, Eivind Myklebost, Ola Meza-Zepeda, Leonardo A BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: Recent developments in deep (next-generation) sequencing technologies are significantly impacting medical research. The global analysis of protein coding regions in genomes of interest by whole exome sequencing is a widely used application. Many technologies for exome capture are commercially available; here we compare the performance of four of them: NimbleGen’s SeqCap EZ v3.0, Agilent’s SureSelect v4.0, Illumina’s TruSeq Exome, and Illumina’s Nextera Exome, all applied to the same human tumor DNA sample. RESULTS: Each capture technology was evaluated for its coverage of different exome databases, target coverage efficiency, GC bias, sensitivity in single nucleotide variant detection, sensitivity in small indel detection, and technical reproducibility. In general, all technologies performed well; however, our data demonstrated small, but consistent differences between the four capture technologies. Illumina technologies cover more bases in coding and untranslated regions. Furthermore, whereas most of the technologies provide reduced coverage in regions with low or high GC content, the Nextera technology tends to bias towards target regions with high GC content. CONCLUSIONS: We show key differences in performance between the four technologies. Our data should help researchers who are planning exome sequencing to select appropriate exome capture technology for their particular application. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-449) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4092227/ /pubmed/24912484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-449 Text en © Chilamakuri et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. 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 credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Chilamakuri, Chandra Sekhar Reddy Lorenz, Susanne Madoui, Mohammed-Amin Vodák, Daniel Sun, Jinchang Hovig, Eivind Myklebost, Ola Meza-Zepeda, Leonardo A Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title | Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title_full | Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title_fullStr | Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title_short | Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
title_sort | performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4092227/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24912484 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-449 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chilamakurichandrasekharreddy performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT lorenzsusanne performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT madouimohammedamin performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT vodakdaniel performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT sunjinchang performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT hovigeivind performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT myklebostola performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing AT mezazepedaleonardoa performancecomparisonoffourexomecapturesystemsfordeepsequencing |