Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
J Virol Methods. 2020 Jun;280:113865. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2020.113865. Epub 2020 Apr 14.
Next-generation sequencing is a powerful tool for virological surveillance. While Illumina® and Ion Torrent® sequencing platforms are used extensively for generating viral RNA genome sequences, there is limited data comparing different platforms. The Illumina MiSeq, Ion Torrent PGM and Ion Torrent S5 platforms were evaluated using a panel of sixteen specimens containing picornaviruses and human caliciviruses (noroviruses and sapoviruses). The specimens were processed, using combinations of three library preparation and five sequencing kits, to assess the quality and completeness of assembled viral genomes, and an estimation of cost per sample to generate the data was calculated. The choice of library preparation kit and sequencing platform was found to impact the breadth of genome coverage and accuracy of consensus viral genomes. The Ion Torrent S5 510 chip runs produced more reads at a lower cost per sample than the highest output Ion Torrent PGM 318 chip run, and generated the highest proportion of reads for enterovirus D68 samples. However, indels at homopolymer regions impacted the accuracy of consensus genome sequences. For lower throughput sequencing runs (i.e., Ion Torrent 510 and Illumina MiSeq Nano V2), the cost per sample was lower on the MiSeq platform, whereas with higher throughput runs (Ion Torrent 530 and Illumina MiSeq V2) there is less of a difference in the cost per sample between the two sequencing platforms ($5.47-$10.25 more per sample for an Ion Torrent 530 chip run when multiplexing 24 samples). These findings suggest that the Ion Torrent S5 and Illumina MiSeq platforms are both viable options for genomic sequencing of RNA viruses, each with specific advantages and tradeoffs.
下一代测序是病毒学监测的有力工具。Illumina®和 Ion Torrent®测序平台广泛用于生成病毒 RNA 基因组序列,但比较不同平台的数据有限。使用包含小核糖核酸病毒和人类杯状病毒(诺如病毒和札如病毒)的 16 个标本评估了 Illumina MiSeq、Ion Torrent PGM 和 Ion Torrent S5 平台。使用三种文库制备试剂盒和五种测序试剂盒组合处理标本,以评估组装病毒基因组的质量和完整性,并计算生成数据的每个样本的估计成本。文库制备试剂盒和测序平台的选择会影响基因组覆盖范围的广度和共识病毒基因组的准确性。Ion Torrent S5 510 芯片的运行产生的读数更多,每个样本的成本更低,比最高输出 Ion Torrent PGM 318 芯片的运行产生的读数更多,并且为肠道病毒 D68 样本生成的读数比例最高。然而,在同源多聚体区域的插入缺失会影响共识基因组序列的准确性。对于较低通量的测序运行(即 Ion Torrent 510 和 Illumina MiSeq Nano V2),MiSeq 平台的每个样本成本更低,而对于更高通量的运行(Ion Torrent 530 和 Illumina MiSeq V2),两个测序平台之间的每个样本成本差异较小(当 24 个样本进行多重处理时,Ion Torrent 530 芯片的运行每个样本多花费 5.47-10.25 美元)。这些发现表明,Ion Torrent S5 和 Illumina MiSeq 平台都是 RNA 病毒基因组测序的可行选择,每个平台都有特定的优势和权衡。