uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Performance of Microarray and Liquid Based Capture Methods for Target Enrichment for Massively Parallel Sequencing and SNP Discovery
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences, Molecular Medicine.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Sciences.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology.
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: PLoS ONE, ISSN 1932-6203, Vol. 6, no 2, e16486- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Targeted sequencing is a cost-efficient way to obtain answers to biological questions in many projects, but the choice of the enrichment method to use can be difficult. In this study we compared two hybridization methods for target enrichment for massively parallel sequencing and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) discovery, namely Nimblegen sequence capture arrays and the SureSelect liquid-based hybrid capture system. We prepared sequencing libraries from three HapMap samples using both methods, sequenced the libraries on the Illumina Genome Analyzer, mapped the sequencing reads back to the genome, and called variants in the sequences. 74-75% of the sequence reads originated from the targeted region in the SureSelect libraries and 41-67% in the Nimblegen libraries. We could sequence up to 99.9% and 99.5% of the regions targeted by capture probes from the SureSelect libraries and from the Nimblegen libraries, respectively. The Nimblegen probes covered 0.6 Mb more of the original 3.1 Mb target region than the SureSelect probes. In each sample, we called more SNPs and detected more novel SNPs from the libraries that were prepared using the Nimblegen method. Thus the Nimblegen method gave better results when judged by the number of SNPs called, but this came at the cost of more over-sampling.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 6, no 2, e16486- p.
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-148475DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016486ISI: 000287361700017PubMedID: 21347407OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-148475DiVA: diva2:402342
Available from: 2011-03-08 Created: 2011-03-07 Last updated: 2011-06-28Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindblad-Toh, Kerstin
By organisation
Department of Medical SciencesMolecular MedicineDepartment of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 669 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf