Abstract

BackgroundTo promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq™ Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer.ResultsHere, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3 % in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99 %. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5 %) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0 %) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3 %). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0 %) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6 %) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8 %).ConclusionsIn the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost

  • Data summary of exome sequencing Exonic DNA from four individual Chinese genomic DNA samples was captured by the Ion TargetSeqTM Exome Enrichment Kit using probes of various lengths (85.1 ± 64.1), and subsequently sequenced by the Proton sequencing platform (Life Technologies)

  • When considering single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) loci, we evaluated the ratio of transitions to transversions (Ti/Tv) because unusually high or low ratios may be indicative of false positive variants

Read more

Summary

Introduction

To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) comprehensively investigates genome sequence changes such as single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) [1, 2], insertions and deletions (InDels) [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], chromosomal rearrangements [10, 11], and copy-number variation [12, 13], and so on. Compared with traditional single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays [20], WGS can generate target DNA sequences and identify substantially more genetic variations, explaining a larger fraction of human phenotypic diversity [21]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.