CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Tags

Performance comparison of whole-genome sequencing platforms

by: Hugo Y. K. Lam, Michael J. Clark, Rui Chen, Rong Chen, Georges Natsoulis, Maeve O'Huallachain, Frederick E. Dewey, Lukas Habegger, Euan A. Ashley, Mark B. Gerstein, Atul J. Butte, Hanlee P. Ji, Michael Snyder
Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 30, No. 1. (18 December 2011), pp. 78-82, doi:10.1038/nbt.2065  Key: citeulike:10174645

Formatted Citation


Show HTML

Likes (beta)

This copy of the article hasn't been liked by anyone yet.

View FullText article


Abstract

Whole-genome sequencing is becoming commonplace, but the accuracy and completeness of variant calling by the most widely used platforms from Illumina and Complete Genomics have not been reported. Here we sequenced the genome of an individual with both technologies to a high average coverage of ∼76×, and compared their performance with respect to sequence coverage and calling of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions and deletions (indels). Although 88.1% of the ∼3.7 million unique SNVs were concordant between platforms, there were tens of thousands of platform-specific calls located in genes and other genomic regions. In contrast, 26.5% of indels were concordant between platforms. Target enrichment validated 92.7% of the concordant SNVs, whereas validation by genotyping array revealed a sensitivity of 99.3%. The validation experiments also suggested that >60% of the platform-specific variants were indeed present in the genome. Our results have important implications for understanding the accuracy and completeness of the genome sequencing platforms.


fuadgwadry's tags for this article

Citations (CiTO)

No CiTO relationships defined

X There are no reviews yet

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X Posting History


X Export records

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.