Go Back   SEQanswers > Literature Watch

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HTSeq: A Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data Simon Anders Bioinformatics 191 10-29-2015 07:33 AM
PubMed: Evaluation of High Throughput Sequencing for identifying known and unknown vi Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 07-01-2011 12:20 PM
PubMed: Evaluation of nanofluidics technology for high-throughput SNP genotyping in a Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 04-19-2011 11:20 AM
ChIP-Seq: Data structures and compression algorithms for high-throughput sequencing t Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 10-16-2010 03:00 AM
ChIP-Seq: Savant: Genome Browser for High Throughput Sequencing Data. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 06-22-2010 03:00 AM

Thread Tools
Old 11-08-2011, 03:12 PM   #1
wiki wiki
Location: Cambridge, England

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 266
Default Evaluation of genomic high-throughput sequencing data generated on Illumina HiSeq and

Evaluation of genomic high-throughput sequencing data generated on Illumina HiSeq and Genome Analyzer systems

Andre E Minoche, Juliane C Dohm and Heinz Himmelbauer

Genome Biology 2011, 12:R112 doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-r112
Published: 8 November 2011

Abstract (provisional)
The generation and analysis of high-throughput sequencing data is becoming a major component of many studies in molecular biology and medical research. Illumina's Genome Analyzer (GA) and HiSeq instruments are currently the most widely used sequencing devices. Here, we comprehensively evaluate properties of genomic HiSeq and GAIIx data derived from two plant genomes and one virus, with read lengths of 95-150 bases.

We provide quantifications and evidence for GC bias, error rates, error sequence context, effects of quality filtering, and the reliability of quality values. By combining different filtering criteria we reduced error rates 7-fold at the expense of discarding 12.5% of alignable bases. While overall error rates are low in HiSeq data we observed regions of accumulated wrong base calls. Only 3% of all error positions accounted for 24.7% of all substitution errors. Analyzing the forward and reverse strand separately revealed error rates of up to 18.7%. Insertions and deletions occurred at very low rates on average but increased to up to 2% in homopolymers. A positive correlation between read coverage and GC content was found depending on the GC content range.

The errors and biases we report have implications on the use and the interpretation of Illumina sequencing data. GAIIx and HiSeq data sets show slightly different error profiles. Quality filtering is essential to minimize downstream analysis artifacts. Supporting previous recommendations, the strand-specificity provides a criterion to distinguish sequencing errors from low abundance polymorphisms.
Homepage: Dan Bolser
MetaBase the database of biological databases.
dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2011, 05:18 AM   #2
Location: Virginia

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 72

This is an interesting article. I am wondering, however, how the statistics on the GA would have changed if the input dataset was a bit more typical. With only 9M unfiltered reads for the PhiX, would this have passed the platform quality tests? We expect >10M reads to pass the quality filters and typically get 25-40M.
bioBob 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 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO