2017
DOI: 10.1101/142356
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A novel post hoc method for detecting index switching finds no evidence for increased switching on the Illumina HiSeq X

Abstract: 10 11High throughput sequencing using the Illumina HiSeq platform is a pervasive and critical 12 molecular ecology resource, and has provided the data underlying many recent advances. A 13 recent study has suggested that 'index switching', where reads are misattributed to the wrong 14 sample, may be higher in new versions of the HiSeq platform. This has the potential to 15 invalidate both published and in-progress work across the field. Here, we test for evidence of 16 index switching in an exemplar whole geno… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(4 reference statements)
1
7
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Counts of the mismatch alleles were uniformly low (mean <0.5% of reads per site). Our results therefore concur with recent studies (Owens, Todesco, Drummond, Yeaman, & Rieseberg, ; van der Valk, Vezzi, Ormestad, Dalén, & Guschanski, ) that the rate of index swapping is low on the new Illumina platforms, and provide confidence that leakage between indexes did not greatly influence the inferred genotype likelihoods or the inferred genetic relationship among individuals.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Counts of the mismatch alleles were uniformly low (mean <0.5% of reads per site). Our results therefore concur with recent studies (Owens, Todesco, Drummond, Yeaman, & Rieseberg, ; van der Valk, Vezzi, Ormestad, Dalén, & Guschanski, ) that the rate of index swapping is low on the new Illumina platforms, and provide confidence that leakage between indexes did not greatly influence the inferred genotype likelihoods or the inferred genetic relationship among individuals.…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Next, we combined the simulated libraries in four different pools (Supporting Information Table S5), one pool containing all 18 samples at 0.1× coverage and 1% endogenous content, one pool containing all samples at 1× coverage and 10% endogenous content, one pool containing all samples at 10× coverage and 100% endogenous content, and one pool containing an equal mixture of samples at 0.1× ( n = 6), 1× ( n = 6) and 10× ( n = 6) coverage, hereafter referred to as the mixed pool. Index hopping within each of the four pools was then simulated by giving each read a probability of randomly hopping into another sample, using the rates reported in the literature: 0.0% (Owens et al, ), ~0.5% (this study), ~2% (Griffiths et al, ), and the extreme case of ~10% (Sinha et al, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reported rate of read misassignment on Illumina platforms that rely on the traditional bridge amplification for cluster generation is low (<1%) (Kircher et al, ; Nelson et al, ; Wright & Vetsigian, ) and therefore this source of error has been readily ignored. However, on the Illumina patterned flow cell platforms with ExAmp chemistry, the reported rate of read misassignment ranges from 0% to 10% (Costello et al, ; Griffiths, Richard, Bach, Lun, & Marioni, ; Owens, Todesco, Drummond, Yeaman, & Rieseberg, ; Sinha et al, ; Vodák et al, ; Yao et al, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We trimmed a region of variable length at the 3′ end of each file, according to the average Phred score (minimum quality score of 28) of each MiSeq run. The Python script (MMIS; Vizcaíno et al, ) was then used to automatize sequence concatenation, OTU picking and to eliminate mistagging events (i.e., a recently described sequencing artefact that results in 1% to 10% of reads misassigned to the wrong sample; Esling, Lejzerowicz, & Pawlowski, ; Sinha, Stanley, & Gulati, ; Owens, Todesco, Drummond, Yeaman, & Rieseberg, ). Moreover, only OTUs with more than 100 identical reads were kept.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%