Suppr超能文献

用于完整捕获蛋白质编码区域的外显子组测序技术与基因组测序技术的比较

Comparison of Exome and Genome Sequencing Technologies for the Complete Capture of Protein-Coding Regions.

作者信息

Lelieveld Stefan H, Spielmann Malte, Mundlos Stefan, Veltman Joris A, Gilissen Christian

机构信息

Department of Human Genetics, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, The Netherlands.

Institute for Medical Genetics and Human Genetics, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

Hum Mutat. 2015 Aug;36(8):815-22. doi: 10.1002/humu.22813. Epub 2015 Jun 11.

Abstract

For next-generation sequencing technologies, sufficient base-pair coverage is the foremost requirement for the reliable detection of genomic variants. We investigated whether whole-genome sequencing (WGS) platforms offer improved coverage of coding regions compared with whole-exome sequencing (WES) platforms, and compared single-base coverage for a large set of exome and genome samples. We find that WES platforms have improved considerably in the last years, but at comparable sequencing depth, WGS outperforms WES in terms of covered coding regions. At higher sequencing depth (95x-160x), WES successfully captures 95% of the coding regions with a minimal coverage of 20x, compared with 98% for WGS at 87-fold coverage. Three different assessments of sequence coverage bias showed consistent biases for WES but not for WGS. We found no clear differences for the technologies concerning their ability to achieve complete coverage of 2,759 clinically relevant genes. We show that WES performs comparable to WGS in terms of covered bases if sequenced at two to three times higher coverage. This does, however, go at the cost of substantially more sequencing biases in WES approaches. Our findings will guide laboratories to make an informed decision on which sequencing platform and coverage to choose.

摘要

对于新一代测序技术而言,足够的碱基对覆盖度是可靠检测基因组变异的首要要求。我们研究了全基因组测序(WGS)平台与全外显子组测序(WES)平台相比,是否能提供更好的编码区覆盖度,并比较了大量外显子组和基因组样本的单碱基覆盖度。我们发现,在过去几年中WES平台有了显著改进,但在测序深度相当的情况下,WGS在覆盖的编码区方面优于WES。在更高的测序深度(95x - 160x)下,WES能以最低20x的覆盖度成功捕获95%的编码区,而WGS在87倍覆盖度时能捕获98%。对序列覆盖偏差的三种不同评估显示,WES存在一致的偏差,而WGS则没有。我们发现,在实现对2759个临床相关基因的完全覆盖能力方面,这两种技术没有明显差异。我们表明,如果以高两到三倍的覆盖度进行测序,WES在覆盖碱基方面的表现与WGS相当。然而,这是以WES方法中大量更多的测序偏差为代价的。我们的研究结果将指导实验室就选择哪种测序平台和覆盖度做出明智的决定。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验