Go Back   SEQanswers > Literature Watch

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Target enrichment performance pfrommolt Bioinformatics 65 03-17-2016 07:46 AM
PubMed: Highly sensitive pyrosequencing based on the capture of free APS with ATP sul Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 03-29-2011 06:20 AM
PubMed: Ultrasensitive fluorescence-based methods for nucleic acid detection: towards Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 02-02-2011 02:00 AM
Pubmed: Microarray-based multicycle-enrichment read2009 Literature Watch 0 09-27-2009 12:20 PM
PubMed: Filter-based hybridization capture of subgenomes enables resequencing and cop Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 06-23-2009 05:00 AM

Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2011, 11:20 AM   #1
RSS Posting Maniac

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,443
Default PubMed: Performance of microarray and liquid based capture methods for target enrichm

Syndicated from PubMed RSS Feeds

Performance of microarray and liquid based capture methods for target enrichment for massively parallel sequencing and SNP discovery.

PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e16486

Authors: Kiialainen A, Karlberg O, Ahlford A, Sigurdsson S, Lindblad-Toh K, Syvšnen AC

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.

PMID: 21347407 [PubMed - in process]

Newsbot! is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO