ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2021
Performance comparison: exome sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger sequencing.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Analysis of PIK3CA mutation prevalence variation among colorectal cancer populations: a comprehensive review.Molecular biology reports · 2025Pooled it
- Mitogenomes reveal the timing and distribution of divergence events among trans-Beringian birds.PeerJ · 2026Article
- Exome sequencing of choreoacanthocytosis reveals novel mutations in VPS13A and co-mutation in modifier gene(s).Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2023Article
- Prenatal diagnosis by trio exome sequencing in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies: A powerful diagnostic tool.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Performance comparison of Agilent new SureSelect All Exon v8 probes with v7 probes for exome sequencing.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Using gene panels in the diagnosis of neuromuscular disorders: A mini-review.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Next generation sequencing tests are used routinely as first-choice tests in the clinic. However, systematic performance comparing the results of exome sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger sequencing of targeted gene(s) is still lacking. Performance comparison data are critically important for clinical case management. In this study, we compared Sanger-sequencing results of 258 genes to those obtained from next generation sequencing (NGS) using two exome-sequencing enrichment kits: Agilent-SureSelectQXT and Illumina-Nextera. Sequencing was performed on leukocytes and buccal-derived DNA from a single individual, and all 258 genes were sequenced a total of 11 times (using different sequencing methods and DNA sources). Sanger sequencing was completed for all exons, including flanking ± 8 bp regions. For the 258 genes, NGS mean coverage was > 20 × for > 98 and > 91% of the regions targeted by SureSelect and Nextera, respectively. Overall, 449 variants were identified in at least one experiment, and 407/449 (90.6%) were detected by all. Of the 42 discordant variants, 23 were determined as true calls, summing-up to a truth set of 430 variants. Sensitivity of true-variant detection was 99% for Sanger sequencing and 97-100% for the NGS experiments. Mean false-positive rates were 3.7E-6 for Sanger sequencing, 2.5E-6 for SureSelect-NGS and 5.2E-6 for Nextera-NGS. Our findings suggest a high overall concordance between Sanger sequencing and NGS performances. Both methods demonstrated false-positive and false-negative calls. High clinical suspicion for a specific diagnosis should, therefore, override negative results of either Sanger sequencing or NGS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33694043What 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.