Comparison of Sequence Reads Obtained from Three Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies enable the rapid cost-effective production of sequence data. To evaluate the performance of these sequencing technologies, investigation of the quality of sequence reads obtained from these methods is important. In this study, we analyzed the quality of sequence reads and SNP detection performance using three commercially available next-generation sequencers, i.e., Roche Genome Sequencer FLX System (FLX), Illumina Genome Analyzer (GA), and Applied Biosystems SOLiD system (SOLiD). A common genomic DNA sample obtained from Escherichia coli strain DH1 was applied to these sequencers. The obtained sequence reads were aligned to the complete genome sequence of E. coli DH1, to evaluate the accuracy and sequence bias of these sequence methods. We found that the fraction of “junk” data, which could not be aligned to the reference genome, was largest in the data set of SOLiD, in which about half of reads could not be aligned. Among data sets after alignment to the reference, sequence accuracy was poorest in GA data sets, suggesting relatively low fidelity of the elongation reaction in the GA method. Furthermore, by aligning the sequence reads to the E. coli strain W3110, we screened sequence differences between two E. coli strains using data sets of three different next-generation platforms. The results revealed that the detected sequence differences were similar among these three methods, while the sequence coverage required for the detection was significantly small in the FLX data set. These results provided valuable information on the quality of short sequence reads and the performance of SNP detection in three next-generation sequencing platforms.

Comparison of Two Capillary Gel Electrophoresis Systems for Clostridium difficile Ribotyping, Using a Panel of Ribotype 027 Isolates and Whole-Genome Sequences as a Reference Standard

“…However, in silico analyses of the four ribotype 027 wholegenome sequences showed that the number of ISR copies in different genomes varied and produced bands of different lengths. Stabler et al (15) previously reported significant differences between the whole-genome sequences of two C. difficile ribotype 027 strains (CD196 and R20291), which suggests that the ISR profile differences between the strains that we identified are due to genuine genomic differences between strains rather than differences in methods of genome analysis (12,17). The results raise the question as to whether the two strains (CD196 and 2007855) with one extra band each and/or the one with one extra and one missing band (2007855) should be classified as different ribotypes, similar to the new ribotypes closely related to ribotype 027 reported by Valiente et al (18), based on the genome R20291-FN545816ISR profile (BI1-FN66894 has the same ISR-length profile) as the 027 reference standard.…”

Genomic characterization of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Insights from next-generation sequencing

“…NGS technologies have several advantages over classical Sanger sequencing, such as the ability to generate large quantities of DNA sequence information in a single run for detecting genetic mosaicism in depth [13] . However, routine usage of these technologies has several limitations, such as high cost, long processing time, and sample scalability.…”

Rapid Detection of the ACMG/ACOG-Recommended 23 CFTR Disease-Causing Mutations Using Ion Torrent Semiconductor Sequencing

“…These rapidly evolving technologies have demonstrated advantages over Sanger sequencing by capillary electrophoresis, such as the abilities to generate megabases (Mb) to gigabases of data and to detect genetic mosaicism. 1,2 However, the current NGS platforms have several weaknesses, including sequencing time, sample scalability, and cost of entry, which need to be addressed if these technologies are going to be used for routine diagnostic purposes. Moreover, the total amount of data produced is typically excessive when sequencing a small number of genes.…”