SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Genomic Resequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
samtools false positive/negative dnusol Bioinformatics 0 11-08-2011 08:13 AM
tophatfusion false positive results lichenbiostat RNA Sequencing 0 10-30-2011 10:37 AM
Illumina Human Exome vs Agilent Human Exome GW_OK Sample Prep / Library Generation 23 06-28-2011 01:06 PM
SNPs false positive GATK jtrivino Bioinformatics 0 05-06-2011 04:28 AM
ti/tv ratio and false positive SNP rate yi2004 Bioinformatics 5 06-21-2010 03:07 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-08-2011, 06:10 AM   #1
markusl
Junior Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Default Illumina vs. Agilent Exome enrichment - higher false positive rates

Hello,

We are sequencing whole exomes (human) using an Illumina HiSeq2000. We previously did sample prep and exome enrichment using the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon Kit. Recently we switched to the Illumina sample prep and exome enrichment kits, however we observed a dramatic increase in false positive SNP calls (the analysis pipeline is the same).

Has anybody else compared Agilent and Illumina exome enrichments and observed similar problems?

Thanks for any comments.

markusl
markusl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2011, 05:27 AM   #2
Rocketknight
Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Seconding this question! I'm in a lab that's just starting to get involved with whole exome sequencing, and I haven't been able to find any quality comparisons of the different exome capture methods. Any advice/experiences people have had with them would be awesome.
Rocketknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2011, 11:24 PM   #3
stanford_genome_tech
Junior Member
 
Location: northern california

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Several major papers on this topic will be coming out shortly. Be on the lookout in Genome Biology as well as others for bakeoff studies.
stanford_genome_tech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2011, 05:38 PM   #4
Heisman
Senior Member
 
Location: St. Louis

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 533
Default

If you are going to analyze multiple, unrelated exomes, you can simply filter out variants that appear in more than X % of the exomes. Granted, you won't get any information from those specific bases, so you have to consider if that is worthwhile (ie, if you are studying a rare Mendelian disease you will probably be fine; if you are studying other more common things and intend to do association tests of some sort then you probably don't want to filter out the common variants.
Heisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2011, 03:37 AM   #5
markusl
Junior Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2
Default

Yes, analyzing multiple samples could help. However we also would be interested if the sample prep method from illumina is somewhat more errorprone compared to Agilent - in that case it would be better to stay with Agilent. Then we have less problems downstream.

Thanks for any replies so far...

markusl
markusl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2011, 11:48 AM   #6
Michael.James.Clark
Senior Member
 
Location: Palo Alto

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 213
Default

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/va.../nbt.1975.html

Ask and ye shall receive.

In particular note the comparisons between exome-seq and WGS in the end. Not a substantially higher false positive rate in either.
__________________
Mendelian Disorder: A blogshare of random useful information for general public consumption. [Blog]
Breakway: A Program to Identify Structural Variations in Genomic Data [Website] [Forum Post]
Projects: U87MG whole genome sequence [Website] [Paper]

Last edited by Michael.James.Clark; 09-30-2011 at 11:52 AM.
Michael.James.Clark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2011, 12:16 PM   #7
Rocketknight
Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 86
Default

I love when two papers get published on exactly the topic I need just as I decide I need to research it. Thanks to both of you!
Rocketknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2011, 07:02 AM   #8
Rocketknight
Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 86
Default

Quick question. I'm still trying to decide between the three exome capture methods. Am I right in thinking that the Illumina kit offers substantially higher throughput (assuming we don't have access to robotics, etc.) because it supports multiplexing before the enrichment protocol? Or is this also possible with the Agilent and Nimblegen kits?
Rocketknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2016, 10:07 AM   #9
prathima
Junior Member
 
Location: Bangalore

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
Default

I am sharing a publication link on Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing. This is might be useful as a very quick reference, I guess. Thanks to the authors.


https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-449


Please do share if any further useful information is available.
prathima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2016, 08:22 AM   #10
Geneus
Member
 
Location: New Jersey

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prathima View Post
I am sharing a publication link on Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing. This is might be useful as a very quick reference, I guess. Thanks to the authors.


https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-449


Please do share if any further useful information is available.
I've been hearing good things as of late about IDT's exome kit (not tested in the above comparison)...maybe someone might want to comment?
Geneus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
error, exome, snp, variant

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 10:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO