4.8 Article

A systematic comparison of error correction enzymes by next-generation sequencing

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 45, Issue 15, Pages 9206-9217

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkx691

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy [DE-FC02-02ER63421]
  2. National Institutes of Health, New Innovator Award [DP2GM114829]
  3. Searle Scholars Program
  4. Office of Naval Research [N000141010144]
  5. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [GM007185]
  6. UCLA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Gene synthesis, the process of assembling gene-length fragments from shorter groups of oligonucleotides (oligos), is becoming an increasingly important tool in molecular and synthetic biology. The length, quality and cost of gene synthesis are limited by errors produced during oligo synthesis and subsequent assembly. Enzymatic error correction methods are cost-effective means to ameliorate errors in gene synthesis. Previous analyses of these methods relied on cloning and Sanger sequencing to evaluate their efficiencies, limiting quantitative assessment. Here, we develop a method to quantify errors in synthetic DNA by next-generation sequencing. We analyzed errors in model gene assemblies and systematically compared six different error correction enzymes across 11 conditions. We find that ErrASE and T7 Endonuclease I are the most effective at decreasing average error rates (up to 5.8-fold relative to the input), whereas MutS is the best for increasing the number of perfect assemblies (up to 25.2-fold). We are able to quantify differential specificities such as ErrASE preferentially corrects C/G transversions whereas T7 Endonuclease I preferentially corrects A/T transversions. More generally, this experimental and computational pipeline is a fast, scalable and extensible way to analyze errors in gene assemblies, to profile error correction methods, and to benchmark DNA synthesis methods.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available