ArticleScientific reports2018
Quantification of massively parallel sequencing libraries - a comparative study of eight methods.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sex-Specific Marker Development and Identification of an XY Sex Determination System in the Tire Track Eel (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- A Field-Friendly, Non-Toxic Fixative for Integrated Morphological and Molecular Research in Non-Model Invertebrates.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Advances in Massive Parallel Sequencing: From Genomics to Spatial Transcriptomics.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparison of the optimal and suboptimal quantity of mitotype libraries using next-generation sequencing.International journal of legal medicine · 2024Article
- The impact of preanalytical variables on the analysis of cell-free DNA from blood and urine samples.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Maximizing the potential of high-throughput next-generation sequencing through precise normalization based on read count distribution.mSystems · 2023Article
- Improving kinship probability in analysis of ancient skeletons using identity SNPs and MPS technology.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- SNP analysis of challenging bone DNA samples using the HID-Ion AmpliSeq™ Identity Panel: facts and artefacts.International journal of legal medicine · 2023Article
- Optimization of an amplicon sequencing-based microsatellite panel and protocol for stock identification and kinship inference of lake trout (Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Synthesis of point-modified mRNA.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Tenogenic induction of human adipose-derived stem cells by soluble tendon extracellular matrix: composition and transcriptomic analyses.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022Article
- Human whole mitochondrial genome sequencing and analysis: optimization of the experimental workflow.Croatian medical journal · 2022Article
- Assessment of Illumina® Human mtDNA Genome assay: workflow evaluation with development of analysis and interpretation guidelines.International journal of legal medicine · 2021Article
- Profiling microRNAs in uncomplicated pregnancies: Serum vs. plasma.Biomedical reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Technical and Methodological Aspects of Cell-Free Nucleic Acids Analyzes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Comparison of Illumina MiSeq and the Ion Torrent PGM and S5 platforms for whole-genome sequencing of picornaviruses and caliciviruses.Journal of virological methods · 2020Article
- Optimizing 16S rRNA gene profile analysis from low biomass nasopharyngeal and induced sputum specimens.BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- Comparison of Four Commercial Kits for Isolation of Urinary Cell-Free DNA and Sample Storage Conditions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantification of massively parallel sequencing libraries is important for acquisition of monoclonal beads or clusters prior to clonal amplification and to avoid large variations in library coverage when multiple samples are included in one sequencing analysis. No gold standard for quantification of libraries exists. We assessed eight methods of quantification of libraries by quantifying 54 amplicon, six capture, and six shotgun fragment libraries. Chemically synthesized double-stranded DNA was also quantified. Light spectrophotometry, i.e. NanoDrop, was found to give the highest concentration estimates followed by Qubit and electrophoresis-based instruments (Bioanalyzer, TapeStation, GX Touch, and Fragment Analyzer), while SYBR Green and TaqMan based qPCR assays gave the lowest estimates. qPCR gave more accurate predictions of sequencing coverage than Qubit and TapeStation did. Costs, time-consumption, workflow simplicity, and ability to quantify multiple samples are discussed. Technical specifications, advantages, and disadvantages of the various methods are pointed out.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.