Hak-Min Kim1, Sungwon Jeon2,3, Oksung Chung1, Je Hoon Jun1, Hui-Su Kim2, Asta Blazyte2,3, Hwang-Yeol Lee1, Youngseok Yu1, Yun Sung Cho1, Dan M Bolser4, Jong Bhak1,2,3,4,5. 1. Clinomics Inc., Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea. 2. Korean Genomics Center (KOGIC), Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, School of Life Sciences, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST), UNIST-gil 50, Eonyang-eup, Ulju-gun, Ulsan, 44919, Republic of Korea. 4. Geromics Ltd., 222 Mill Road, Cambridge, CB1 3NF, United Kingdom. 5. Personal Genomics Institute (PGI), Genome Research Foundation, Osong saengmyong1ro, Cheongju, 28160, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DNBSEQ-T7 is a new whole-genome sequencer developed by Complete Genomics and MGI using DNA nanoball and combinatorial probe anchor synthesis technologies to generate short reads at a very large scale-up to 60 human genomes per day. However, it has not been objectively and systematically compared against Illumina short-read sequencers. FINDINGS: By using the same KOREF sample, the Korean Reference Genome, we have compared 7 sequencing platforms including BGISEQ-500, DNBSEQ-T7, HiSeq2000, HiSeq2500, HiSeq4000, HiSeqX10, and NovaSeq6000. We measured sequencing quality by comparing sequencing statistics (base quality, duplication rate, and random error rate), mapping statistics (mapping rate, depth distribution, and percent GC coverage), and variant statistics (transition/transversion ratio, dbSNP annotation rate, and concordance rate with single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] genotyping chip) across the 7 sequencing platforms. We found that MGI platforms showed a higher concordance rate for SNP genotyping than HiSeq2000 and HiSeq4000. The similarity matrix of variant calls confirmed that the 2 MGI platforms have the most similar characteristics to the HiSeq2500 platform. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MGI and Illumina sequencing platforms showed comparable levels of sequencing quality, uniformity of coverage, percent GC coverage, and variant accuracy; thus we conclude that the MGI platforms can be used for a wide range of genomics research fields at a lower cost than the Illumina platforms.
BACKGROUND: DNBSEQ-T7 is a new whole-genome sequencer developed by Complete Genomics and MGI using DNA nanoball and combinatorial probe anchor synthesis technologies to generate short reads at a very large scale-up to 60 human genomes per day. However, it has not been objectively and systematically compared against Illumina short-read sequencers. FINDINGS: By using the same KOREF sample, the Korean Reference Genome, we have compared 7 sequencing platforms including BGISEQ-500, DNBSEQ-T7, HiSeq2000, HiSeq2500, HiSeq4000, HiSeqX10, and NovaSeq6000. We measured sequencing quality by comparing sequencing statistics (base quality, duplication rate, and random error rate), mapping statistics (mapping rate, depth distribution, and percent GC coverage), and variant statistics (transition/transversion ratio, dbSNP annotation rate, and concordance rate with single-nucleotide polymorphism [SNP] genotyping chip) across the 7 sequencing platforms. We found that MGI platforms showed a higher concordance rate for SNP genotyping than HiSeq2000 and HiSeq4000. The similarity matrix of variant calls confirmed that the 2 MGI platforms have the most similar characteristics to the HiSeq2500 platform. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MGI and Illumina sequencing platforms showed comparable levels of sequencing quality, uniformity of coverage, percent GC coverage, and variant accuracy; thus we conclude that the MGI platforms can be used for a wide range of genomics research fields at a lower cost than the Illumina platforms.
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
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: John Huddleston; Mark J P Chaisson; Karyn Meltz Steinberg; Wes Warren; Kendra Hoekzema; David Gordon; Tina A Graves-Lindsay; Katherine M Munson; Zev N Kronenberg; Laura Vives; Paul Peluso; Matthew Boitano; Chen-Shin Chin; Jonas Korlach; Richard K Wilson; Evan E Eichler Journal: Genome Res Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Sol A Jeon; Jong Lyul Park; Jong-Hwan Kim; Jeong Hwan Kim; Yong Sung Kim; Jin Cheon Kim; Seon-Young Kim Journal: Genomics Inform Date: 2019-09-27