Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies.

PLoS One 2013 11;8(6):e66621. Epub 2013 Jun 11.

Division of Theoretical Bioinformatics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.

The emergence of high-throughput, next-generation sequencing technologies has dramatically altered the way we assess genomes in population genetics and in cancer genomics. Currently, there are four commonly used whole-genome sequencing platforms on the market: Illumina's HiSeq2000, Life Technologies' SOLiD 4 and its completely redesigned 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics' technology. A number of earlier studies have compared a subset of those sequencing platforms or compared those platforms with Sanger sequencing, which is prohibitively expensive for whole genome studies. Here we present a detailed comparison of the performance of all currently available whole genome sequencing platforms, especially regarding their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific genomic regions. Unlike earlier studies, we base our comparison on four different samples, allowing us to assess the between-sample variation of the platforms. We find a pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions for Life Technologies' platforms, with Complete Genomics performing best here, while we see the least bias in GC-poor regions for HiSeq2000 and 5500xl. HiSeq2000 gives the most uniform coverage and displays the least sample-to-sample variation. In contrast, Complete Genomics exhibits by far the smallest fraction of bases not covered, while the SOLiD platforms reveal remarkable shortcomings, especially in covering CpG islands. When comparing the performance of the four platforms for calling SNPs, HiSeq2000 and Complete Genomics achieve the highest sensitivity, while the SOLiD platforms show the lowest false positive rate. Finally, we find that integrating sequencing data from different platforms offers the potential to combine the strengths of different technologies. In summary, our results detail the strengths and weaknesses of all four whole-genome sequencing platforms. It indicates application areas that call for a specific sequencing platform and disallow other platforms. This helps to identify the proper sequencing platform for whole genome studies with different application scopes.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066621PLOS
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3679043PMC
January 2014
3 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sequencing platforms
16
whole-genome sequencing
12
platforms
12
complete genomics
12
sequencing
10
sequencing platform
8
earlier studies
8
solid platforms
8
sequencing technologies
8
genome studies
8
life technologies'
8
genomic regions
4
regions earlier
4
specific genomic
4
highest sensitivity
4
sensitivity solid
4
genome specific
4
assess between-sample
4
studies base
4
snps hiseq2000
4

Similar Publications