Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31616586›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Adapterama I: universal stubs and primers for 384 unique dual-indexed or 147,456 combinatorially-indexed Illumina libraries (iTru & iNext).

Travis C Glenn, Roger A Nilsen, Troy J Kieran, Jon G Sanders, Natalia J Bayona-Vásquez, John W Finger, Todd W Pierson, Kerin E Bentley, Sandra L Hoffberg, Swarnali Louha and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 189 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
189citing 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

189 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Complete Mitochondrial Genome ofEcology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

129 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors.

Travis C GlennDepartment of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Roger A NilsenGeorgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Troy J KieranDepartment of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Jon G SandersDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, United States of America.
Natalia J Bayona-VásquezDepartment of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
John W FingerDepartment of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Todd W PiersonDepartment of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Kerin E BentleyDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Sandra L HoffbergDepartment of Genetics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Swarnali LouhaInstitute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Francisco J Garcia-De LeonLaboratorio de Genética para la Conservación, Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, SC, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, La Paz, Mexico.
Miguel Angel Del Rio PortillaCentro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada (CICESE), Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico.
Kurt D ReedDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States of America.
Jennifer L AndersonIntegrated Research and Development Laboratory, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI, United States of America.
Jennifer K MeeceIntegrated Research and Development Laboratory, Marshfield Clinic Research Institute, Marshfield, WI, United States of America.
Samuel E AggreyInstitute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Romdhane RekayaInstitute of Bioinformatics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Magdy AlabadyGeorgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Myriam BelangerGeorgia Genomics and Bioinformatics Core, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, United States of America.
Kevin WinkerUniversity of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, AK, United States of America.
Brant C FairclothDepartment of Biological Sciences and Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Massively parallel DNA sequencing offers many benefits, but major inhibitory cost factors include: (1) start-up (i.e., purchasing initial reagents and equipment); (2) buy-in (i.e., getting the smallest possible amount of data from a run); and (3) sample preparation. Reducing sample preparation costs is commonly addressed, but start-up and buy-in costs are rarely addressed. We present dual-indexing systems to address all three of these issues. By breaking the library construction process into universal, re-usable, combinatorial components, we reduce all costs, while increasing the number of samples and the variety of library types that can be combined within runs. We accomplish this by extending the Illumina TruSeq dual-indexing approach to 768 (384 + 384) indexed primers that produce 384 unique dual-indexes or 147,456 (384 × 384) unique combinations. We maintain eight nucleotide indexes, with many that are compatible with Illumina index sequences. We synthesized these indexing primers, purifying them with only standard desalting and placing small aliquots in replicate plates. In qPCR validation tests, 206 of 208 primers tested passed (99% success). We then created hundreds of libraries in various scenarios. Our approach reduces start-up and per-sample costs by requiring only one universal adapter that works with indexed PCR primers to uniquely identify samples. Our approach reduces buy-in costs because: (1) relatively few oligonucleotides are needed to produce a large number of indexed libraries; and (2) the large number of possible primers allows researchers to use unique primer sets for different projects, which facilitates pooling of samples during sequencing. Our libraries make use of standard Illumina sequencing primers and index sequence length and are demultiplexed with standard Illumina software, thereby minimizing customization headaches. In subsequent

Indexed as

AdaptersIlluminaMultiplexingNext Generation SequencingNovaSeqPoolingPrimersSample Preparation

Identifiers

PMID31616586
PMCPMC6791352

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.