Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Experience of Illumina TruSeq Exome coverage? leesi Illumina/Solexa 2 03-05-2013 11:45 PM
Illumina Whole Exome coverage kellogg Illumina/Solexa 5 07-14-2011 09:18 AM
Variant calling for high-coverage Illumina data dgmacarthur Bioinformatics 19 04-08-2011 06:34 AM
MIRA output for Illumina mapping giving 100% coverage! Kasycas Bioinformatics 1 09-10-2010 03:45 AM
In Sequence: Illumina GA’s Deep Coverage Shown to Be Useful for Profiling, Discovery Newsbot! Illumina/Solexa 0 02-26-2008 02:20 PM

Thread Tools
Old 12-06-2011, 06:01 PM   #1
Junior Member
Location: California

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
Default Why Illumina reads may have uneven coverage?

Why Illumina reads may have uneven coverage of the genome? Does it depend on GC content of the genome, and if so, then why and how exactly?
I would appreciate any explanations or references (preferably so that a non-biology background person can understand)
ojy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 12:41 AM   #2
Location: Cambridge area, UK

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 35


We observed that read coverage is affected by GC content. Each sample, however, have a different bias and has to be corrected independently. We don't know exaclty why, and we suspect it is somehow linked to DNA quality and extraction method.

We briefly mention CG bias in a recent paper. Read supplementary material for a few examples. Other articles (cited) mention GC content bias.
stefanoberri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 06:03 AM   #3
Senior Member
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315

The evidence from full genome sequencing experiments is that the majority of bias comes from enrichment PCR. If you search, you can find references to this.

We have seen this to be the case first hand. A standard TruSeq shotgun library of Deinococcus radiodurans (a ~70% GC genome) gave us very uneven coverage. Mapped back to the reference, the reads would vary from 100x coverage down to zero. However running the same library directly, without intervening enrichment PCR, resulted in quite even coverage.

The down-side was that cluster densities we got from the non-amplified library were much lower than expected from qPCR titration. Subsequent documentation from Illumina leads me to believe that the TruSeq adapters have some modification that interferes with them binding to the flow cell. (Possibly LNAs? I don't know if LNAs are recalcitrant to NaOH denaturation.)

pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2011, 11:47 PM   #4
Senior Member
Location: SEA

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 203

out of curiousity, your illumina reads are from GAIIx? or HiSeq? AFAIK, differences in the sample prep resulted in a different GC coverage profile even within the same companies' platform.
anecdotal evidence only, no figures or anything.
KevinLam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2011, 03:01 AM   #5
Senior Member
Location: London

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 298

Hi Phillip
I think Illumina have seen this problem with non-PCR'd libraries. They seem to think the problem arises with the Y adapter not dissociating properly in the NaOH denaturation step. Their suggested solution is to perform a one cycle PCR to completely linearise the libraries before qPCR and flowcell loading.
Also, the Kapa library amplification module is supposedly better at generating even coverage (when compared to the Phusion Taq in the Illumina kits), although we haven't tried it yet.
TonyBrooks is offline   Reply With Quote

gc content, illumina reads, sequencing, uneven coverage, wgs

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 10:52 AM.

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