ArticleMicrobial genomics2021
Is amplification bias consequential in transposon sequencing (TnSeq) assays? A case study with a
Article in Microbial genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Cas9-targeted nanopore sequencing facilitates ultra-deep analysis of genomic variation.Cell reports methods · 2026Article
- Changing fitness effects of mutations through long-term bacterial evolution.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
As transposon sequencing (TnSeq) assays have become prolific in the microbiology field, it is of interest to scrutinize their potential drawbacks. TnSeq data consist of millions of nucleotide sequence reads that are generated by PCR amplification of transposon-genomic junctions. Reads mapping to the junctions are enumerated thus providing information on the number of transposon insertion mutations in each individual gene. Here we explore the possibility that PCR amplification of transposon insertions in a TnSeq library skews the results by introducing bias into the detection and/or enumeration of insertions. We compared the detection and frequency of mapped insertions when altering the number of PCR cycles, and when including a nested PCR, in the enrichment step. Additionally, we present nCATRAs - a novel, amplification-free TnSeq method where the insertions are enriched via CRISPR/Cas9-targeted transposon cleavage and subsequent Oxford Nanopore MinION sequencing. nCATRAs achieved 54 and 23% enrichment of the transposons and transposon-genomic junctions, respectively, over background genomic DNA. These PCR-based and PCR-free experiments demonstrate that, overall, PCR amplification does not significantly bias the results of TnSeq insofar as insertions in the majority of genes represented in our library were similarly detected regardless of PCR cycle number and whether or not PCR amplification was employed. However, the detection of a small subset of genes which had been previously described as essential is sensitive to the number of PCR cycles. We conclude that PCR-based enrichment of transposon insertions in a TnSeq assay is reliable, but researchers interested in profiling putative essential genes should carefully weigh the number of amplification cycles employed in their library preparation protocols. In addition, nCATRAs is comparable to traditional PCR-based methods (Kendall's correlation=0.896-0.897) although the latter remain superior owing to their accessibility and high sequencing depth.
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.