Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23586822›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2013

Massively-parallel sequencing of genes on a single chromosome: a comparison of solution hybrid selection and flow sorting.

Jamie K Teer, Jennifer J Johnston, Sarah L Anzick, Marbin Pineda, Gary Stone, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, Paul S Meltzer, James C Mullikin, Leslie G Biesecker

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jamie K TeerNational Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. Jamie.Teer@moffitt.org
Jennifer J Johnston
Sarah L Anzick
Marbin Pineda
Gary Stone
NISC Comparative Sequencing Program
Paul S Meltzer
James C Mullikin
Leslie G Biesecker

Funding

Inter- and Intra-Species Comparative SequencingZIBHG000196 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI THOMAS, JAMES · 2009 to 2025
$177.6M
Infectious Diseases Research Technologies Core - RMLZICAI001052 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI CHERRY, JAMES · 2009 to 2025
$133.3M
Genomic Ascertainment - Molecular and Genetic AspectsZIAHG200359 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BIESECKER, LESLIE · 2009 to 2025
$19.7M
Comparative Genomics Unit ResearchZIAHG200330 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI MULLIKIN, JAMES C · 2009 to 2022
$17.9M
Cancer Genomics Technology DevelopmentZIABC011091 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI MELTZER, PAUL S. · 2009 to 2025
$16.9M
Technical Development of Molecular Profiling TechnologiesZICBC011041 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI EDELMAN, DANIEL · 2009 to 2020
$3.7M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTargeted capture, combined with massively-parallel sequencing, is a powerful technique that allows investigation of specific portions of the genome for less cost than whole genome sequencing. Several methods have been developed, and improvements have resulted in commercial products targeting the human or mouse exonic regions (the exome). In some cases it is desirable to custom-target other regions of the genome, either to reduce the amount of sequence that is targeted or to capture regions that are not targeted by commercial kits. It is important to understand the advantages, limitations, and complexity of a given capture method before embarking on a targeted sequencing experiment.

resultsWe compared two custom targeted capture methods suitable for single chromosome analysis: Solution Hybrid Selection (SHS) and Flow Sorting (FS) of single chromosomes. Both methods can capture targeted material and result in high percentages of genotype identifications across these regions: 59-92% for SHS and 70-79% for FS. FS is amenable to current structural variation detection methods, and variants were detected. Structural variation was also assessed for SHS samples with paired end sequencing, resulting in variant identification.

conclusionsWhile both methods can effectively target genomic regions for genotype determination, several considerations make each method appropriate in different circumstances. SHS is well suited for experiments targeting smaller regions in a larger number of samples. FS is well suited when regions of interest cover large regions of a single chromosome. Although whole genome sequencing is becoming less expensive, the sequencing, data storage, and analysis costs make targeted sequencing using SHS or FS a compelling option.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosomesFlow CytometryGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansINDEL MutationMiceSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID23586822
PMCPMC3637801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.