4.8 Article

Detection of low-frequency DNA variants by targeted sequencing of the Watson and Crick strands

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 1220-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00900-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research
  2. Marcus Foundation
  3. Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research
  4. Conrad N. Hilton Foundation
  5. John Templeton Foundation
  6. Medical Research Future Fund Investigator Grant [APP1194970]
  7. National Institutes of Health [T32 GM007309, U01 CA230691-01, P50 CA228991, U01 CA200469, R37 CA230400-01, U01 CA152753]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The SaferSeqS method efficiently detects low-frequency mutations by introducing identical molecular barcodes and enriching target sequences with strand-specific PCR, achieving high sensitivity and specificity, and detecting variants at frequencies below 1 in 100,000 DNA template molecules with a background mutation rate of <5 x 10(-7) mutants per base pair (bp).
Mutations present at a low frequency in a sample are detected with high sensitivity and a low error rate. Identification and quantification of low-frequency mutations remain challenging despite improvements in the baseline error rate of next-generation sequencing technologies. Here, we describe a method, termed SaferSeqS, that addresses these challenges by (1) efficiently introducing identical molecular barcodes in the Watson and Crick strands of template molecules and (2) enriching target sequences with strand-specific PCR. The method achieves high sensitivity and specificity and detects variants at frequencies below 1 in 100,000 DNA template molecules with a background mutation rate of <5 x 10(-7) mutants per base pair (bp). We demonstrate that it can evaluate mutations in a single amplicon or simultaneously in multiple amplicons, assess limited quantities of cell-free DNA with high recovery of both strands and reduce the error rate of existing PCR-based molecular barcoding approaches by >100-fold.

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

4.8
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