Go Back   SEQanswers > Literature Watch

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PubMed: Systematic comparison of three genomic enrichment methods for massively paral Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 09-03-2010 03:00 AM
PubMed: Comparison of Normalization Methods for Construction of Large Multiplex Ampli Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 04-27-2010 03:00 AM
PubMed: Comparison of methods for quantification of subtle splice variants. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 10-29-2009 07:20 AM
PubMed: Methods for Genomic Partitioning. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 07-28-2009 06:00 AM
PubMed: Comparison of DNA pyrosequencing with alternative methods for identification Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 04-18-2008 07:10 AM

Thread Tools
Old 09-09-2010, 08:50 AM   #1
--Site Admin--
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,358
Default PubMed: Systematic comparison of three genomic enrichment methods...

Interesting paper, even if there are NimbleGen authors.

Systematic comparison of three genomic enrichment methods for massively parallel DNA sequencing.

Teer JK, Bonnycastle LL, Chines PS, Hansen NF, Aoyama N, Swift AJ, Abaan HO, Albert TJ; NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, Margulies EH, Green ED, Collins FS, Mullikin JC, Biesecker LG.

National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA;

Massively parallel DNA sequencing technologies have greatly increased our ability to generate large amounts of sequencing data at a rapid pace. Several methods have been developed to enrich for genomic regions of interest for targeted sequencing. We have compared three of these methods: Molecular Inversion Probes (MIP), Solution Hybrid Selection (SHS), and Microarray-based Genomic Selection (MGS). Using HapMap DNA samples, we compared each of these methods with respect to their ability to capture an identical set of exons and evolutionarily conserved regions associated with 528 genes (2.61 Mb). For sequence analysis, we developed and used a novel Bayesian genotype-assigning algorithm, Most Probable Genotype (MPG). All three capture methods were effective, but sensitivities (percentage of targeted bases associated with high-quality genotypes) varied for an equivalent amount of pass-filtered sequence: for example, 70% (MIP), 84% (SHS), and 91% (MGS) for 400 Mb. In contrast, all methods yielded similar accuracies of >99.84% when compared to Infinium 1M SNP BeadChip-derived genotypes and >99.998% when compared to 30-fold coverage whole-genome shotgun sequencing data. We also observed a low false-positive rate with all three methods; of the heterozygous positions identified by each of the capture methods, >99.57% agreed with 1M SNP BeadChip, and >98.840% agreed with the whole-genome shotgun data. In addition, we successfully piloted the genomic enrichment of a set of 12 pooled samples via the MGS method using molecular bar codes. We find that these three genomic enrichment methods are highly accurate and practical, with sensitivities comparable to that of 30-fold coverage whole-genome shotgun data
ECO 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 12:24 AM.

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