Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33864614›Full record

ArticleGenes & genomics2021

Comparison between MGI and Illumina sequencing platforms for whole genome sequencing.

Sol A Jeon, Jong Lyul Park, Seung-Jin Park, Jeong Hwan Kim, Sung-Ho Goh, Ji-Youn Han, Seon-Young Kim

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genes & genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Short-Read Sequencing Benchmarking with Donor-Specific Assemblies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Draft genome sequence ofMicrobiology resource announcements · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sol A JeonPersonalized Genomic Medicine Research Center, KRIBB, 34141, Daejeon, South Korea.
Jong Lyul ParkPersonalized Genomic Medicine Research Center, KRIBB, 34141, Daejeon, South Korea.
Seung-Jin ParkPersonalized Genomic Medicine Research Center, KRIBB, 34141, Daejeon, South Korea.
Jeong Hwan KimPersonalized Genomic Medicine Research Center, KRIBB, 34141, Daejeon, South Korea.
Sung-Ho GohNational Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Republic of Korea.
Ji-Youn HanNational Cancer Center, Goyang-si, Republic of Korea.
Seon-Young KimPersonalized Genomic Medicine Research Center, KRIBB, 34141, Daejeon, South Korea. kimsy@kribb.re.kr.
Korea University of Science and Technology · KRKorea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology · KRNational Cancer Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIllumina next generation sequencing (NGS) systems are the major sequencing platform in worldwide next-generation sequencing market. On the other hand, MGI Tech launched a series of new NGS equipment that promises to deliver high-quality sequencing data faster and at lower prices than Illumina's sequencing instruments.

objectiveIn this study, we compared the performance of the two platform's major sequencing instruments-Illumina's NovaSeq 6000 and MGI's MGISEQ-2000 and DNBSEQ-T7-to test whether the MGISEQ-2000 and DNBSEQ-T7 sequencing instruments are also suitable for whole genome sequencing.

methodsWe sequenced two pairs of normal and tumor tissues from Korean lung cancer patients using the three platforms. Then, we called single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertion and deletion (indels) for somatic and germline variants to compare the performance among the three platforms.

resultsIn quality control analysis, all of the three platforms showed high-quality scores and deep coverages. Comparison among the three platforms revealed that MGISEQ-2000 is most concordant with NovaSeq 6000 for germline SNVs and indels, and DNBSEQ-T7 is most concordant with NovaSeq 6000 for somatic SNVs and indels.

conclusionsThese results suggest that the performances of the MGISEQ-2000 and DNBSEQ-T7 platforms are comparable to that of the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform and support the potential applicability of the MGISEQ-2000 and DNBSEQ-T7 platforms in actual genome analysis fields.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingGenetic VariationHumansLung NeoplasmsReference ValuesWhole Genome SequencingBenchmarkingDNBSEQ-T7MGISEQ-2000NovaSeq 6000PlatformWGS

Identifiers

PMID33864614
OpenAlexW3154810354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.