↓ Skip to main content

Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison and evaluation of two exome capture kits and sequencing platforms for variant calling
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1796-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guoqiang Zhang, Jianfeng Wang, Jin Yang, Wenjie Li, Yutian Deng, Jing Li, Jun Huang, Songnian Hu, Bing Zhang

Abstract

To promote the clinical application of next-generation sequencing, it is important to obtain accurate and consistent variants of target genomic regions at low cost. Ion Proton, the latest updated semiconductor-based sequencing instrument from Life Technologies, is designed to provide investigators with an inexpensive platform for human whole exome sequencing that achieves a rapid turnaround time. However, few studies have comprehensively compared and evaluated the accuracy of variant calling between Ion Proton and Illumina sequencing platforms such as HiSeq 2000, which is the most popular sequencing platform for the human genome. The Ion Proton sequencer combined with the Ion TargetSeq™ Exome Enrichment Kit together make up TargetSeq-Proton, whereas SureSelect-Hiseq is based on the Agilent SureSelect Human All Exon v4 Kit and the HiSeq 2000 sequencer. Here, we sequenced exonic DNA from four human blood samples using both TargetSeq-Proton and SureSelect-HiSeq. We then called variants in the exonic regions that overlapped between the two exome capture kits (33.6 Mb). The rates of shared variant loci called by two sequencing platforms were from 68.0 to 75.3 % in four samples, whereas the concordance of co-detected variant loci reached 99 %. Sanger sequencing validation revealed that the validated rate of concordant single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (91.5 %) was higher than the SNPs specific to TargetSeq-Proton (60.0 %) or specific to SureSelect-HiSeq (88.3 %). With regard to 1-bp small insertions and deletions (InDels), the Sanger sequencing validated rates of concordant variants (100.0 %) and SureSelect-HiSeq-specific (89.6 %) were higher than those of TargetSeq-Proton-specific (15.8 %). In the sequencing of exonic regions, a combination of using of two sequencing strategies (SureSelect-HiSeq and TargetSeq-Proton) increased the variant calling specificity for concordant variant loci and the sensitivity for variant loci called by any one platform. However, for the sequencing of platform-specific variants, the accuracy of variant calling by HiSeq 2000 was higher than that of Ion Proton, specifically for the InDel detection. Moreover, the variant calling software also influences the detection of SNPs and, specifically, InDels in Ion Proton exome sequencing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Australia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
China 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 56 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 8 12%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Computer Science 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2015.
All research outputs
#2,574,833
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#712
of 11,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,048
of 275,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#14
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,253 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.