BACKGROUND: Next generation sequencing and advances in genomic enrichment technologies have enabled the discovery of the full spectrum of variants from common to rare alleles in the human population. The application of such technologies can be limited by the amount of DNA available. Whole genome amplification (WGA) can overcome such limitations. Here we investigate applicability of using WGA by comparing SNP and INDEL variant calls from a single genomic/WGA sample pair from two capture separate experiments: a 50 Mbp whole exome capture and a custom capture array of 4 Mbp region on chr12. RESULTS: Our results comparing variant calls derived from genomic and WGA DNA show that the majority of variant SNP and INDEL calls are common to both callsets, both at the site and genotype level and suggest that allele bias plays a minimal role when using WGA DNA in re-sequencing studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of this study are based on a limited sample size, they suggest that using WGA DNA allows the discovery of the vast majority of variants, and achieves high concordance metrics, when comparing to genomic DNA calls.
BACKGROUND: Next generation sequencing and advances in genomic enrichment technologies have enabled the discovery of the full spectrum of variants from common to rare alleles in the human population. The application of such technologies can be limited by the amount of DNA available. Whole genome amplification (WGA) can overcome such limitations. Here we investigate applicability of using WGA by comparing SNP and INDEL variant calls from a single genomic/WGA sample pair from two capture separate experiments: a 50 Mbp whole exome capture and a custom capture array of 4 Mbp region on chr12. RESULTS: Our results comparing variant calls derived from genomic and WGA DNA show that the majority of variant SNP and INDEL calls are common to both callsets, both at the site and genotype level and suggest that allele bias plays a minimal role when using WGA DNA in re-sequencing studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although the results of this study are based on a limited sample size, they suggest that using WGA DNA allows the discovery of the vast majority of variants, and achieves high concordance metrics, when comparing to genomic DNA calls.
Authors: Adam Kiezun; Kiran Garimella; Ron Do; Nathan O Stitziel; Benjamin M Neale; Paul J McLaren; Namrata Gupta; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jennifer L Moran; Christina M Hultman; Paul Lichtenstein; Patrik Magnusson; Thomas Lehner; Yin Yao Shugart; Alkes L Price; Paul I W de Bakker; Shaun M Purcell; Shamil R Sunyaev Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michael J Bamshad; Sarah B Ng; Abigail W Bigham; Holly K Tabor; Mary J Emond; Deborah A Nickerson; Jay Shendure Journal: Nat Rev Genet Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 53.242
Authors: Gabor T Marth; Fuli Yu; Amit R Indap; Kiran Garimella; Simon Gravel; Wen Fung Leong; Chris Tyler-Smith; Matthew Bainbridge; Tom Blackwell; Xiangqun Zheng-Bradley; Yuan Chen; Danny Challis; Laura Clarke; Edward V Ball; Kristian Cibulskis; David N Cooper; Bob Fulton; Chris Hartl; Dan Koboldt; Donna Muzny; Richard Smith; Carrie Sougnez; Chip Stewart; Alistair Ward; Jin Yu; Yali Xue; David Altshuler; Carlos D Bustamante; Andrew G Clark; Mark Daly; Mark DePristo; Paul Flicek; Stacey Gabriel; Elaine Mardis; Aarno Palotie; Richard Gibbs Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Gonçalo R Abecasis; David Altshuler; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Richard A Gibbs; Matt E Hurles; Gil A McVean Journal: Nature Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Yi Jing He; Anne D Misher; William Irvin; Alison Motsinger-Reif; Howard L McLeod; Janelle M Hoskins Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Stephen J Murphy; John C Cheville; Shabnam Zarei; Sarah H Johnson; Robert A Sikkink; Farhad Kosari; Andrew L Feldman; Bruce W Eckloff; R Jeffrey Karnes; George Vasmatzis Journal: DNA Res Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Mark A DePristo; Eric Banks; Ryan Poplin; Kiran V Garimella; Jared R Maguire; Christopher Hartl; Anthony A Philippakis; Guillermo del Angel; Manuel A Rivas; Matt Hanna; Aaron McKenna; Tim J Fennell; Andrew M Kernytsky; Andrey Y Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Stacey B Gabriel; David Altshuler; Mark J Daly Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Johanna Hasmats; Henrik Gréen; Cedric Orear; Pierre Validire; Mikael Huss; Max Käller; Joakim Lundeberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alexandra R Buckley; Kristopher A Standish; Kunal Bhutani; Trey Ideker; Roger S Lasken; Hannah Carter; Olivier Harismendy; Nicholas J Schork Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 3.969