Cargando…
Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing
BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing technology is developing rapidly and target capture sequencing has become an important technique. Several different platforms for library preparation and target capture with different bait types respectively are commercially available. Here we compare the perfo...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7888174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33597004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-021-00171-3 |
_version_ | 1783652116635582464 |
---|---|
author | Zhou, Juan Zhang, Mancang Li, Xiaoqi Wang, Zhuo Pan, Dun Shi, Yongyong |
author_facet | Zhou, Juan Zhang, Mancang Li, Xiaoqi Wang, Zhuo Pan, Dun Shi, Yongyong |
author_sort | Zhou, Juan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing technology is developing rapidly and target capture sequencing has become an important technique. Several different platforms for library preparation and target capture with different bait types respectively are commercially available. Here we compare the performance of the four platforms with different bait types to find out their advantages and limitations. The purpose of this study is to help investigators and clinicians select the appropriate platform for their particular application and lay the foundation for the development of a better target capture platform for next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: We formulate capture efficiency as a novel parameter that can be used to better evaluations of specificity and coverage depth among the different capture platforms. Target coverage, capture efficiency, GC bias, AT Dropout, sensitivity in single nucleotide polymorphisms, small insertions and deletions detection, and the feature of each platform were compared for low input samples. In general, all platforms perform well and small differences among them are revealed. In our results, RNA baits have stronger binding power than DNA baits, and with ultra deep sequencing, double stranded RNA baits perform better than single stranded RNA baits in all aspects. DNA baits got better performance in the region with high GC content and RNA baits got lower AT dropout suggesting that the binding power is different between DNA and RNA baits to genome regions with different characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The platforms with double stranded RNA baits have the most balanced capture performance. Our results show the key differences in performance among the four updated platforms with four different bait types. The better performance of double stranded RNA bait with ultra deep sequencing suggests that it may improve the sensitivity of ultra low frequent mutation detection. In addition, we further propose that the mixed baits of double stranded RNA and single stranded DNA may improve target capture performance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41065-021-00171-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7888174 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78881742021-02-22 Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing Zhou, Juan Zhang, Mancang Li, Xiaoqi Wang, Zhuo Pan, Dun Shi, Yongyong Hereditas Research BACKGROUND: Next-generation sequencing technology is developing rapidly and target capture sequencing has become an important technique. Several different platforms for library preparation and target capture with different bait types respectively are commercially available. Here we compare the performance of the four platforms with different bait types to find out their advantages and limitations. The purpose of this study is to help investigators and clinicians select the appropriate platform for their particular application and lay the foundation for the development of a better target capture platform for next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: We formulate capture efficiency as a novel parameter that can be used to better evaluations of specificity and coverage depth among the different capture platforms. Target coverage, capture efficiency, GC bias, AT Dropout, sensitivity in single nucleotide polymorphisms, small insertions and deletions detection, and the feature of each platform were compared for low input samples. In general, all platforms perform well and small differences among them are revealed. In our results, RNA baits have stronger binding power than DNA baits, and with ultra deep sequencing, double stranded RNA baits perform better than single stranded RNA baits in all aspects. DNA baits got better performance in the region with high GC content and RNA baits got lower AT dropout suggesting that the binding power is different between DNA and RNA baits to genome regions with different characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The platforms with double stranded RNA baits have the most balanced capture performance. Our results show the key differences in performance among the four updated platforms with four different bait types. The better performance of double stranded RNA bait with ultra deep sequencing suggests that it may improve the sensitivity of ultra low frequent mutation detection. In addition, we further propose that the mixed baits of double stranded RNA and single stranded DNA may improve target capture performance. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41065-021-00171-3. BioMed Central 2021-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7888174/ /pubmed/33597004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-021-00171-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021, corrected publication 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Zhou, Juan Zhang, Mancang Li, Xiaoqi Wang, Zhuo Pan, Dun Shi, Yongyong Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title | Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title_full | Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title_fullStr | Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title_full_unstemmed | Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title_short | Performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome DNA sequencing |
title_sort | performance comparison of four types of target enrichment baits for exome dna sequencing |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7888174/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33597004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41065-021-00171-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhoujuan performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing AT zhangmancang performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing AT lixiaoqi performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing AT wangzhuo performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing AT pandun performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing AT shiyongyong performancecomparisonoffourtypesoftargetenrichmentbaitsforexomednasequencing |