Cargando…
Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing
BACKGROUND: Novel commercial kits for whole genome library preparation for next-generation sequencing on Illumina platforms promise shorter workflows, lower inputs and cost savings. Time savings are achieved by employing enzymatic DNA fragmentation and by combining end-repair and tailing reactions....
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805253/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35105301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-08316-y |
_version_ | 1784643205626593280 |
---|---|
author | Ribarska, Teodora Bjørnstad, Pål Marius Sundaram, Arvind Y. M. Gilfillan, Gregor D. |
author_facet | Ribarska, Teodora Bjørnstad, Pål Marius Sundaram, Arvind Y. M. Gilfillan, Gregor D. |
author_sort | Ribarska, Teodora |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Novel commercial kits for whole genome library preparation for next-generation sequencing on Illumina platforms promise shorter workflows, lower inputs and cost savings. Time savings are achieved by employing enzymatic DNA fragmentation and by combining end-repair and tailing reactions. Fewer cleanup steps also allow greater DNA input flexibility (1 ng-1 μg), PCR-free options from 100 ng DNA, and lower price as compared to the well-established sonication and tagmentation-based DNA library preparation kits. RESULTS: We compared the performance of four enzymatic fragmentation-based DNA library preparation kits (from New England Biolabs, Roche, Swift Biosciences and Quantabio) to a tagmentation-based kit (Illumina) using low input DNA amounts (10 ng) and PCR-free reactions with 100 ng DNA. With four technical replicates of each input amount and kit, we compared the kits’ fragmentation sequence-bias as well as performance parameters such as sequence coverage and the clinically relevant detection of single nucleotide and indel variants. While all kits produced high quality sequence data and demonstrated similar performance, several enzymatic fragmentation methods produced library insert sizes which deviated from those intended. Libraries with longer insert lengths performed better in terms of coverage, SNV and indel detection. Lower performance of shorter-insert libraries could be explained by loss of sequence coverage to overlapping paired-end reads, exacerbated by the preferential sequencing of shorter fragments on Illumina sequencers. We also observed that libraries prepared with minimal or no PCR performed best with regard to indel detection. CONCLUSIONS: The enzymatic fragmentation-based DNA library preparation kits from NEB, Roche, Swift and Quantabio are good alternatives to the tagmentation based Nextera DNA flex kit from Illumina, offering reproducible results using flexible DNA inputs, quick workflows and lower prices. Libraries with insert DNA fragments longer than the cumulative sum of both read lengths avoid read overlap, thus produce more informative data that leads to strongly improved genome coverage and consequently also increased sensitivity and precision of SNP and indel detection. In order to best utilize such enzymatic fragmentation reagents, researchers should be prepared to invest time to optimize fragmentation conditions for their particular samples. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-022-08316-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8805253 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88052532022-02-03 Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing Ribarska, Teodora Bjørnstad, Pål Marius Sundaram, Arvind Y. M. Gilfillan, Gregor D. BMC Genomics Research BACKGROUND: Novel commercial kits for whole genome library preparation for next-generation sequencing on Illumina platforms promise shorter workflows, lower inputs and cost savings. Time savings are achieved by employing enzymatic DNA fragmentation and by combining end-repair and tailing reactions. Fewer cleanup steps also allow greater DNA input flexibility (1 ng-1 μg), PCR-free options from 100 ng DNA, and lower price as compared to the well-established sonication and tagmentation-based DNA library preparation kits. RESULTS: We compared the performance of four enzymatic fragmentation-based DNA library preparation kits (from New England Biolabs, Roche, Swift Biosciences and Quantabio) to a tagmentation-based kit (Illumina) using low input DNA amounts (10 ng) and PCR-free reactions with 100 ng DNA. With four technical replicates of each input amount and kit, we compared the kits’ fragmentation sequence-bias as well as performance parameters such as sequence coverage and the clinically relevant detection of single nucleotide and indel variants. While all kits produced high quality sequence data and demonstrated similar performance, several enzymatic fragmentation methods produced library insert sizes which deviated from those intended. Libraries with longer insert lengths performed better in terms of coverage, SNV and indel detection. Lower performance of shorter-insert libraries could be explained by loss of sequence coverage to overlapping paired-end reads, exacerbated by the preferential sequencing of shorter fragments on Illumina sequencers. We also observed that libraries prepared with minimal or no PCR performed best with regard to indel detection. CONCLUSIONS: The enzymatic fragmentation-based DNA library preparation kits from NEB, Roche, Swift and Quantabio are good alternatives to the tagmentation based Nextera DNA flex kit from Illumina, offering reproducible results using flexible DNA inputs, quick workflows and lower prices. Libraries with insert DNA fragments longer than the cumulative sum of both read lengths avoid read overlap, thus produce more informative data that leads to strongly improved genome coverage and consequently also increased sensitivity and precision of SNP and indel detection. In order to best utilize such enzymatic fragmentation reagents, researchers should be prepared to invest time to optimize fragmentation conditions for their particular samples. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12864-022-08316-y. BioMed Central 2022-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8805253/ /pubmed/35105301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-08316-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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 Ribarska, Teodora Bjørnstad, Pål Marius Sundaram, Arvind Y. M. Gilfillan, Gregor D. Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title | Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title_full | Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title_fullStr | Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title_short | Optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for Illumina sequencing |
title_sort | optimization of enzymatic fragmentation is crucial to maximize genome coverage: a comparison of library preparation methods for illumina sequencing |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805253/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35105301 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-08316-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ribarskateodora optimizationofenzymaticfragmentationiscrucialtomaximizegenomecoverageacomparisonoflibrarypreparationmethodsforilluminasequencing AT bjørnstadpalmarius optimizationofenzymaticfragmentationiscrucialtomaximizegenomecoverageacomparisonoflibrarypreparationmethodsforilluminasequencing AT sundaramarvindym optimizationofenzymaticfragmentationiscrucialtomaximizegenomecoverageacomparisonoflibrarypreparationmethodsforilluminasequencing AT gilfillangregord optimizationofenzymaticfragmentationiscrucialtomaximizegenomecoverageacomparisonoflibrarypreparationmethodsforilluminasequencing |