4.6 Article

Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods Used for the Next-Generation Sequencing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148676

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian federal Genomics Research and Development Initiative (GRDI) from the Government of Canada
  2. Public Health Agency of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The advent and widespread application of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies to the study of microbial genomes has led to a substantial increase in the number of studies in which whole genome sequencing (WGS) is applied to the analysis of microbial genomic epidemiology. However, microorganisms such as Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) present unique problems for sequencing and downstream analysis based on their unique physiology and the composition of their genomes. In this study, we compare the quality of sequence data generated using the Nextera and TruSeq isolate preparation kits for library construction prior to Illumina sequencing-by-synthesis. Our results confirm that MTB NGS data quality is highly dependent on the purity of the DNA sample submitted for sequencing and its guanine-cytosine content (or GC-content). Our data additionally demonstrate that the choice of library preparation method plays an important role in mitigating downstream sequencing quality issues. Importantly for MTB, the Illumina TruSeq library preparation kit produces more uniform data quality than the Nextera XT method, regardless of the quality of the input DNA. Furthermore, specific genomic sequence motifs are commonly missed by the Nextera XT method, as are regions of especially high GC-content relative to the rest of the MTB genome. As coverage bias is highly undesirable, this study illustrates the importance of appropriate protocol selection when performing NGS studies in order to ensure that sound inferences can be made regarding mycobacterial genomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available