Systematic comparison of three genomic enrichment methods for massively parallel DNA sequencing.
Massively parallel DNA sequencing technologies have greatly increased our ability to generate large amounts of sequencing data at a rapid pace. Several methods have been developed to enrich for genomic regions of interest for targeted sequencing. We have compared three of these methods: Molecular Inversion Probes (MIP), Solution Hybrid Selection (SHS), and Microarray-based Genomic Selection (MGS). Using HapMap DNA samples, we compared each of these methods with respect to their ability to capture an identical set of exons and evolutionarily conserved regions associated with 528 genes (2.61 Mb). For sequence analysis, we developed and used a novel Bayesian genotype-assigning algorithm, Most Probable Genotype (MPG). All three capture methods were effective, but sensitivities (percentage of targeted bases associated with high-quality genotypes) varied for an equivalent amount of pass-filtered sequence: for example, 70% (MIP), 84% (SHS), and 91% (MGS) for 400 Mb. In contrast, all methods yielded similar accuracies of >99.84% when compared to Infinium 1M SNP BeadChip-derived genotypes and >99.998% when compared to 30-fold coverage whole-genome shotgun sequencing data. We also observed a low false-positive rate with all three methods; of the heterozygous positions identified by each of the capture methods, >99.57% agreed with 1M SNP BeadChip, and >98.840% agreed with the whole-genome shotgun data. In addition, we successfully piloted the genomic enrichment of a set of 12 pooled samples via the MGS method using molecular bar codes. We find that these three genomic enrichment methods are highly accurate and practical, with sensitivities comparable to that of 30-fold coverage whole-genome shotgun data.
Teer
Jamie K
JK
National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Bonnycastle
Lori L
LL
Chines
Peter S
PS
Hansen
Nancy F
NF
Aoyama
Natsuyo
N
Swift
Amy J
AJ
Abaan
Hatice Ozel
HO
Albert
Thomas J
TJ
Margulies
Elliott H
EH
Green
Eric D
ED
Collins
Francis S
FS
Mullikin
James C
JC
Biesecker
Leslie G
LG
D000465:Algorithms; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D004247:DNA / Q000235:genetics; D015342:DNA Probes / Q000235:genetics; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000235:genetics*; D005091:Exons; D015894:Genome, Human; D005838:Genotype; D006801:Humans; D020411:Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D017422:Sequence Analysis, DNA / Q000379:methods*
D015342:DNA Probes; D004247:DNA
Nat Methods. 2009 Jul;6(7):507-10
19543287
Nat Methods. 2009 May;6(5):315-6
19349981
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Oct;26(10):1101-4
18846081
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1665-74
19602640
Nature. 2005 Sep 15;437(7057):376-80
16056220
Genome Res. 2001 Jun;11(6):1005-17
11381028
Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Nov;27(11):1025-31
19881494
Nat Methods. 2010 Feb;7(2):111-8
20111037
Science. 2005 Sep 9;309(5741):1728-32
16081699
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(6):960-74
19478811
Nat Methods. 2007 Nov;4(11):931-6
17934468
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2009;10:263-84
19630561
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2009 Jan;393(1):171-5
18958448
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1616-21
19638418
Nat Genet. 2007 Dec;39(12):1522-7
17982454
Nat Methods. 2007 Nov;4(11):903-5
17934467
Nat Methods. 2007 Nov;4(11):907-9
17934469
Genomics. 2009 Dec;94(6):363-8
19720138
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9296-301
18599465
Nat Methods. 2008 Oct;5(10):887-93
18794863
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1606-15
19525355
Nat Biotechnol. 2009 Feb;27(2):182-9
19182786
Nature. 2008 Nov 6;456(7218):53-9
18987734
Diabetes Care. 1998 Jun;21(6):949-58
9614613