4.4 Article

Comprehensive comparison of three commercial human whole-exome capture platforms

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-r95

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2006AA02A302, 2009AA022707]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30811130531]
  3. Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Exome sequencing, which allows the global analysis of protein coding sequences in the human genome, has become an effective and affordable approach to detecting causative genetic mutations in diseases. Currently, there are several commercial human exome capture platforms; however, the relative performances of these have not been characterized sufficiently to know which is best for a particular study. Results: We comprehensively compared three platforms: NimbleGen's Sequence Capture Array and SeqCap EZ, and Agilent's SureSelect. We assessed their performance in a variety of ways, including number of genes covered and capture efficacy. Differences that may impact on the choice of platform were that Agilent SureSelect covered approximately 1,100 more genes, while NimbleGen provided better flanking sequence capture. Although all three platforms achieved similar capture specificity of targeted regions, the NimbleGen platforms showed better uniformity of coverage and greater genotype sensitivity at 30- to 100-fold sequencing depth. All three platforms showed similar power in exome SNP calling, including medically relevant SNPs. Compared with genotyping and whole-genome sequencing data, the three platforms achieved a similar accuracy of genotype assignment and SNP detection. Importantly, all three platforms showed similar levels of reproducibility, GC bias and reference allele bias. Conclusions: We demonstrate key differences between the three platforms, particularly advantages of solutions over array capture and the importance of a large gene target set.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据