Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32824272›Full record

ArticleViruses2020

A Comparison of Whole Genome Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 Using Amplicon-Based Sequencing, Random Hexamers, and Bait Capture.

Jalees A Nasir, Robert A Kozak, Patryk Aftanas, Amogelang R Raphenya, Kendrick M Smith, Finlay Maguire, Hassaan Maan, Muhannad Alruwaili, Arinjay Banerjee, Hamza Mbareche and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing 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

65 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Direct prediction of carbapenem resistance inJournal of clinical microbiology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 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

17 authors.

Jalees A NasirMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6582-9085
Robert A KozakDivision of Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
Patryk AftanasDivision of Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.
Amogelang R RaphenyaMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9259-5280
Kendrick M SmithPerimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada.
Finlay MaguireFaculty of Computer Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1203-9514
Hassaan MaanPeter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2N2, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3830-7177
Muhannad AlruwailiInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK.
Arinjay BanerjeeMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2821-8357
Hamza MbarecheDivision of Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4169-5203
Brian P AlcockMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.
Natalie C KnoxNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB R3E 3M4, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6133-7799
Karen MossmanMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1725-5873
Bo WangPeter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2N2, Canada.
Julian A HiscoxInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK.
Andrew G McArthurMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1142-3063
Samira MubarekaDivision of Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Molecular Diagnostics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada.

Funding

CIHR PJT-156214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is increasingly important to monitor the transmission and adaptive evolution of the virus. The accessibility of high-throughput methods and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has facilitated a growing ecosystem of protocols. Two differing protocols are tiling multiplex PCR and bait capture enrichment. Each method has advantages and disadvantages but a direct comparison with different viral RNA concentrations has not been performed to assess the performance of these approaches. Here we compare Liverpool amplification, ARTIC amplification, and bait capture using clinical diagnostics samples. All libraries were sequenced using an Illumina MiniSeq with data analyzed using a standardized bioinformatics workflow (SARS-CoV-2 Illumina GeNome Assembly Line; SIGNAL). One sample showed poor SARS-CoV-2 genome coverage and consensus, reflective of low viral RNA concentration. In contrast, the second sample had a higher viral RNA concentration, which yielded good genome coverage and consensus. ARTIC amplification showed the highest depth of coverage results for both samples, suggesting this protocol is effective for low concentrations. Liverpool amplification provided a more even read coverage of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, but at a lower depth of coverage. Bait capture enrichment of SARS-CoV-2 cDNA provided results on par with amplification. While only two clinical samples were examined in this comparative analysis, both the Liverpool and ARTIC amplification methods showed differing efficacy for high and low concentration samples. In addition, amplification-free bait capture enriched sequencing of cDNA is a viable method for generating a SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence and for identification of amplification artifacts.

Indexed as

Base SequenceBetacoronavirusClinical Laboratory TechniquesCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingDNA, ComplementaryGenome, ViralHumansMolecular EpidemiologyMultiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionPandemicsPneumonia, ViralRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Whole Genome SequencingDNA, ComplementaryRNA, Viralamplicon sequencingbait capturegenome sequencingSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32824272
PMCPMC7472420

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.