Title |
Pre-capture multiplexing improves efficiency and cost-effectiveness of targeted genomic enrichment
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Genomics, November 2012
|
DOI | 10.1186/1471-2164-13-618 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
A Eliot Shearer, Michael S Hildebrand, Harini Ravi, Swati Joshi, Angelica C Guiffre, Barbara Novak, Scott Happe, Emily M LeProust, Richard JH Smith |
Abstract |
Targeted genomic enrichment (TGE) is a widely used method for isolating and enriching specific genomic regions prior to massively parallel sequencing. To make effective use of sequencer output, barcoding and sample pooling (multiplexing) after TGE and prior to sequencing (post-capture multiplexing) has become routine. While previous reports have indicated that multiplexing prior to capture (pre-capture multiplexing) is feasible, no thorough examination of the effect of this method has been completed on a large number of samples. Here we compare standard post-capture TGE to two levels of pre-capture multiplexing: 12 or 16 samples per pool. We evaluated these methods using standard TGE metrics and determined the ability to identify several classes of genetic mutations in three sets of 96 samples, including 48 controls. Our overall goal was to maximize cost reduction and minimize experimental time while maintaining a high percentage of reads on target and a high depth of coverage at thresholds required for variant detection. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Peru | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 3% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
Sweden | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 57 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 25 | 40% |
Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 11% |
Other | 5 | 8% |
Professor | 3 | 5% |
Other | 7 | 11% |
Unknown | 7 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 56% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 13 | 21% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
Psychology | 2 | 3% |
Engineering | 2 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 6 | 10% |