Rhodes Johanna, Beale Mathew A, Fisher Matthew C
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Institute of Infection and Immunity, St. George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 19;9(11):e113501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113501. eCollection 2014.
The industry of next-generation sequencing is constantly evolving, with novel library preparation methods and new sequencing machines being released by the major sequencing technology companies annually. The Illumina TruSeq v2 library preparation method was the most widely used kit and the market leader; however, it has now been discontinued, and in 2013 was replaced by the TruSeq Nano and TruSeq PCR-free methods, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding which is the most appropriate library preparation method to use. Here, we used isolates from the pathogenic fungi Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii and sequenced them using the existing TruSeq DNA v2 kit (Illumina), along with two new kits: the TruSeq Nano DNA kit (Illumina) and the NEBNext Ultra DNA kit (New England Biolabs) to provide a comparison. Compared to the original TruSeq DNA v2 kit, both newer kits gave equivalent or better sequencing data, with increased coverage. When comparing the two newer kits, we found little difference in cost and workflow, with the NEBNext Ultra both slightly cheaper and faster than the TruSeq Nano. However, the quality of data generated using the TruSeq Nano DNA kit was superior due to higher coverage at regions of low GC content, and more SNPs identified. Researchers should therefore evaluate their resources and the type of application (and hence data quality) being considered when ultimately deciding on which library prep method to use.
新一代测序行业不断发展,主要测序技术公司每年都会推出新的文库制备方法和新型测序仪。Illumina TruSeq v2文库制备方法曾是使用最广泛的试剂盒且占据市场领先地位;然而,该方法现已停产,并于2013年被TruSeq Nano和TruSeq PCR-free方法所取代,这使得在选择最适合的文库制备方法方面出现了知识空白。在此,我们使用新型隐球菌格鲁比变种的致病真菌分离株,并用现有的TruSeq DNA v2试剂盒(Illumina)以及两种新试剂盒:TruSeq Nano DNA试剂盒(Illumina)和NEBNext Ultra DNA试剂盒(新英格兰生物实验室)对其进行测序,以作比较。与原始的TruSeq DNA v2试剂盒相比,两种新试剂盒均能提供同等或更好的测序数据,且覆盖度有所提高。在比较这两种新试剂盒时,我们发现成本和操作流程方面差异不大,NEBNext Ultra试剂盒比TruSeq Nano试剂盒略便宜且速度更快。然而,由于在低GC含量区域具有更高的覆盖度以及鉴定出更多的单核苷酸多态性(SNP),使用TruSeq Nano DNA试剂盒生成的数据质量更优。因此,研究人员在最终决定使用哪种文库制备方法时,应评估自身资源以及所考虑的应用类型(进而评估数据质量)。