ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of miniaturized Illumina DNA preparation protocols for SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening supply chains for pathogen genomic surveillance in Asia.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Building Pathogen Genomic Sequencing Capacity in Africa: Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation Fellowship.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Reflective Evaluation of Next-Generation Sequencing Data during Early Phase Detection of the Delta Variant.OBM genetics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of miniaturized Illumina DNA preparation protocols for SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing.PloS one · 2023Article
- Fun-sized library prep: Miniaturization is a valid method for per-sample cost reduction in targeted sequencing of angiosperm DNA.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has increased the demand for scalable sequencing and diagnostic methods, especially for genomic surveillance. Although next-generation sequencing has enabled large-scale genomic surveillance, the ability to sequence SARS-CoV-2 in some settings has been limited by the cost of sequencing kits and the time-consuming preparations of sequencing libraries. We compared the sequencing outcomes, cost and turn-around times obtained using the standard Illumina DNA Prep kit protocol to three modified protocols with fewer clean-up steps and different reagent volumes (full volume, half volume, one-tenth volume). We processed a single run of 47 samples under each protocol and compared the yield and mean sequence coverage. The sequencing success rate and quality for the four different reactions were as follows: the full reaction was 98.2%, the one-tenth reaction was 98.0%, the full rapid reaction was 97.5% and the half-reaction, was 97.1%. As a result, uniformity of sequence quality indicated that libraries were not affected by the change in protocol. The cost of sequencing was reduced approximately seven-fold and the time taken to prepare the library was reduced from 6.5 hours to 3 hours. The sequencing results obtained using the miniaturised volumes showed comparability to the results obtained using full volumes as described by the manufacturer. The adaptation of the protocol represents a lower-cost, streamlined approach for SARS-CoV-2 sequencing, which can be used to produce genomic data quickly and more affordably, especially in resource-constrained settings.
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.