Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lelieveld SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4755152 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Lelieveld Stefan H SH Spielmann Malte M Mundlos Stefan S Veltman Joris A JA Gilissen Christian C

Human mutation 20150611 8

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, W ...[more]

PMID: 25973577

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdvances in single-cell sequencing provide unprecedented opportunities for clinical examination of circulating tumor cells, cancer stem cells, and other rare cells responsible for disease progression and drug resistance. On the genomic level, single-cell whole exome sequencing (scWES) started to gain popularity with its unique potentials in characterizing mutational landscapes at a single-cell level. Currently, there is little known about the performance of different exome capture kits in scWES. Nextera rapid capture (NXT; Illumina, Inc.) has been the only exome capture kit recommended for scWES by Fluidigm C1, a widely accessed system in single-cell preparation.ResultsIn this study, we compared the performance of NXT following Fluidigm's protocol with Agilent SureSelectXT Target Enrichment System (AGL), another exome capture kit widely used for bulk sequencing. We created DNA libraries of 192 single cells isolated from spheres grown from a melanoma specimen using Fluidigm C1. Twelve high-yield cells were selected to perform dual-exome capture and sequencing using AGL and NXT in parallel. After mapping and coverage analysis, AGL outperformed NXT in coverage uniformity, mapping rates of reads, exome capture rates, and low PCR duplicate rates. For germline variant calling, AGL achieved better performance in overlap with known variants in dbSNP and transition-transversion ratios. Using calls from high coverage bulk sequencing from blood DNA as the golden standard, AGL-based scWES demonstrated high positive predictive values, and medium to high sensitivity. Lastly, we evaluated somatic mutation calling by comparing single-cell data with the matched blood sequence as control. On average, 300 mutations were identified in each cell. In 10 of 12 cells, higher numbers of mutations were identified using AGL than NXT, probably caused by coverage depth. When mutations are adequately covered in both AGL and NXT data, the two methods showed very high concordance (93-100% per cell).ConclusionsOur results suggest that AGL can also be used for scWES when there is sufficient DNA, and it yields better data quality than the current Fluidigm's protocol using NXT.

Project description:BackgroundTo promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer.ResultsHere, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3% in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99%. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5%) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0%) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3%). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0%) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6%) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8%).ConclusionsIn the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets