Cargando…
Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling
BACKGROUND: To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide inv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26242175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6 |
_version_ | 1782384179762167808 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Guoqiang Wang, Jianfeng Yang, Jin Li, Wenjie Deng, Yutian Li, Jing Huang, Jun Hu, Songnian Zhang, Bing |
author_facet | Zhang, Guoqiang Wang, Jianfeng Yang, Jin Li, Wenjie Deng, Yutian Li, Jing Huang, Jun Hu, Songnian Zhang, Bing |
author_sort | Zhang, Guoqiang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq™ Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer. RESULTS: Here, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3 % in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99 %. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5 %) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0 %) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3 %). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0 %) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6 %) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: In the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4524363 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45243632015-08-05 Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling Zhang, Guoqiang Wang, Jianfeng Yang, Jin Li, Wenjie Deng, Yutian Li, Jing Huang, Jun Hu, Songnian Zhang, Bing BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq™ Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer. RESULTS: Here, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3 % in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99 %. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5 %) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0 %) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3 %). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0 %) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6 %) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: In the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-08-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4524363/ /pubmed/26242175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6 Text en © Zhang et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), 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 Zhang, Guoqiang Wang, Jianfeng Yang, Jin Li, Wenjie Deng, Yutian Li, Jing Huang, Jun Hu, Songnian Zhang, Bing Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title | Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title_full | Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title_fullStr | Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title_short | Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
title_sort | comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4524363/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26242175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangguoqiang comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT wangjianfeng comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT yangjin comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT liwenjie comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT dengyutian comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT lijing comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT huangjun comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT husongnian comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling AT zhangbing comparisonandevaluationoftwoexomecapturekitsandsequencingplatformsforvariantcalling |