4.5 Review

Evolution of selective-sequencing approaches for virus discovery and virome analysis

期刊

VIRUS RESEARCH
卷 239, 期 -, 页码 172-179

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2017.06.005

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health award [HL119485]
  2. National Science Foundation award [FAIN-1619072]
  3. Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital
  4. Division Of Environmental Biology
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1619072] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent advances in sequencing technologies have transformed the field of virus discovery and virome analysis. Once mostly confined to the traditional Sanger sequencing based individual virus discovery, is now entirely replaced by high throughput sequencing (HTS) based virus metagenomics that can be used to characterize the nature and composition of entire viromes. To better harness the potential of HTS for the study of viromes, sample preparation methodologies use different approaches to exclude amplification of non-viral components that can overshadow low-titer viruses. These virus-sequence enrichment approaches mostly focus on the sample preparation methods, like enzymatic digestion of non-viral nucleic acids and size exclusion of non-viral constituents by column filtration, ultrafiltration or density gradient centrifugation. However, recently a new approach of virus-sequence enrichment called virome-capture sequencing, focused on the amplification or HTS library preparation stage, was developed to increase the ability of virome characterization. This new approach has the potential to further transform the field of virus discovery and virome analysis, but its technical complexity and sequence-dependence warrants further improvements. In this review we discuss the different methods, their applications and evolution, for selective sequencing based virome analysis and also propose refinements needed to harness the full potential of HTS for virome analysis.

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

4.5
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