Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies.
The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina's HiSeq2000, Life Technol...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/408b0b951a5e4349acf88afcb63b782b |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| id |
oai:doaj.org-article:408b0b951a5e4349acf88afcb63b782b |
|---|---|
| record_format |
dspace |
| spelling |
oai:doaj.org-article:408b0b951a5e4349acf88afcb63b782b2021-11-18T07:42:11ZCoverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0066621https://doaj.org/article/408b0b951a5e4349acf88afcb63b782b2013-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23776689/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina's HiSeq2000, Life Technologies' SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics' technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies' platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes.Nora RieberMarc ZapatkaBärbel LasitschkaDavid JonesPaul NorthcottBarbara HutterNatalie JägerMarcel KoolMichael TaylorPeter LichterStefan PfisterStephan WolfBenedikt BrorsRoland EilsPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 8, Iss 6, p e66621 (2013) |
| institution |
DOAJ |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
EN |
| topic |
Medicine R Science Q |
| spellingShingle |
Medicine R Science Q Nora Rieber Marc Zapatka Bärbel Lasitschka David Jones Paul Northcott Barbara Hutter Natalie Jäger Marcel Kool Michael Taylor Peter Lichter Stefan Pfister Stephan Wolf Benedikt Brors Roland Eils Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| description |
The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina's HiSeq2000, Life Technologies' SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics' technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies' platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes. |
| format |
article |
| author |
Nora Rieber Marc Zapatka Bärbel Lasitschka David Jones Paul Northcott Barbara Hutter Natalie Jäger Marcel Kool Michael Taylor Peter Lichter Stefan Pfister Stephan Wolf Benedikt Brors Roland Eils |
| author_facet |
Nora Rieber Marc Zapatka Bärbel Lasitschka David Jones Paul Northcott Barbara Hutter Natalie Jäger Marcel Kool Michael Taylor Peter Lichter Stefan Pfister Stephan Wolf Benedikt Brors Roland Eils |
| author_sort |
Nora Rieber |
| title |
Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| title_short |
Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| title_full |
Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| title_fullStr |
Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| title_sort |
coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. |
| publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| url |
https://doaj.org/article/408b0b951a5e4349acf88afcb63b782b |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT norarieber coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT marczapatka coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT barbellasitschka coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT davidjones coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT paulnorthcott coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT barbarahutter coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT nataliejager coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT marcelkool coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT michaeltaylor coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT peterlichter coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT stefanpfister coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT stephanwolf coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT benediktbrors coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies AT rolandeils coveragebiasandsensitivityofvariantcallingforfourwholegenomesequencingtechnologies |
| _version_ |
1718423092528676864 |