Cargando…

Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions

For next‐generation sequencing technologies, sufficient base‐pair coverage is the foremost requirement for the reliable detection of genomic variants. We investigated whether whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) platforms offer improved coverage of coding regions compared with whole‐exome sequencing (WES)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lelieveld, Stefan H., Spielmann, Malte, Mundlos, Stefan, Veltman, Joris A., Gilissen, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4755152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25973577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.22813
_version_ 1782416154478772224
author Lelieveld, Stefan H.
Spielmann, Malte
Mundlos, Stefan
Veltman, Joris A.
Gilissen, Christian
author_facet Lelieveld, Stefan H.
Spielmann, Malte
Mundlos, Stefan
Veltman, Joris A.
Gilissen, Christian
author_sort Lelieveld, Stefan H.
collection PubMed
description For next‐generation sequencing technologies, sufficient base‐pair coverage is the foremost requirement for the reliable detection of genomic variants. We investigated whether whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) platforms offer improved coverage of coding regions compared with whole‐exome sequencing (WES) platforms, and compared single‐base coverage for a large set of exome and genome samples. We find that WES platforms have improved considerably in the last years, but at comparable sequencing depth, WGS outperforms WES in terms of covered coding regions. At higher sequencing depth (95x–160x), WES successfully captures 95% of the coding regions with a minimal coverage of 20x, compared with 98% for WGS at 87‐fold coverage. Three different assessments of sequence coverage bias showed consistent biases for WES but not for WGS. We found no clear differences for the technologies concerning their ability to achieve complete coverage of 2,759 clinically relevant genes. We show that WES performs comparable to WGS in terms of covered bases if sequenced at two to three times higher coverage. This does, however, go at the cost of substantially more sequencing biases in WES approaches. Our findings will guide laboratories to make an informed decision on which sequencing platform and coverage to choose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4755152
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47551522016-02-25 Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions Lelieveld, Stefan H. Spielmann, Malte Mundlos, Stefan Veltman, Joris A. Gilissen, Christian Hum Mutat Methods For next‐generation sequencing technologies, sufficient base‐pair coverage is the foremost requirement for the reliable detection of genomic variants. We investigated whether whole‐genome sequencing (WGS) platforms offer improved coverage of coding regions compared with whole‐exome sequencing (WES) platforms, and compared single‐base coverage for a large set of exome and genome samples. We find that WES platforms have improved considerably in the last years, but at comparable sequencing depth, WGS outperforms WES in terms of covered coding regions. At higher sequencing depth (95x–160x), WES successfully captures 95% of the coding regions with a minimal coverage of 20x, compared with 98% for WGS at 87‐fold coverage. Three different assessments of sequence coverage bias showed consistent biases for WES but not for WGS. We found no clear differences for the technologies concerning their ability to achieve complete coverage of 2,759 clinically relevant genes. We show that WES performs comparable to WGS in terms of covered bases if sequenced at two to three times higher coverage. This does, however, go at the cost of substantially more sequencing biases in WES approaches. Our findings will guide laboratories to make an informed decision on which sequencing platform and coverage to choose. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-06-11 2015-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4755152/ /pubmed/25973577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.22813 Text en © 2015 The Authors. **Human Mutation published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Methods
Lelieveld, Stefan H.
Spielmann, Malte
Mundlos, Stefan
Veltman, Joris A.
Gilissen, Christian
Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title_full Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title_fullStr Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title_short Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein‐Coding Regions
title_sort comparison of exome and genome sequencing technologies for the complete capture of protein‐coding regions
topic Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4755152/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25973577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/humu.22813
work_keys_str_mv AT lelieveldstefanh comparisonofexomeandgenomesequencingtechnologiesforthecompletecaptureofproteincodingregions
AT spielmannmalte comparisonofexomeandgenomesequencingtechnologiesforthecompletecaptureofproteincodingregions
AT mundlosstefan comparisonofexomeandgenomesequencingtechnologiesforthecompletecaptureofproteincodingregions
AT veltmanjorisa comparisonofexomeandgenomesequencingtechnologiesforthecompletecaptureofproteincodingregions
AT gilissenchristian comparisonofexomeandgenomesequencingtechnologiesforthecompletecaptureofproteincodingregions