ArticleBMC genomics2024
Comparison of capture-based mtDNA sequencing performance between MGI and illumina sequencing platforms in various sample types.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation, Identification, and Functional Characterization of a Rhizosphere Bacterium Promoting the Growth ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Next generation sequencing and beyond: a review of genomic sequencing methods.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Beyond the base pairs: comparative genome-wide DNA methylation profiling across sequencing technologies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMitochondrial genome abnormalities can lead to mitochondrial dysfunction, which in turn affects cellular biology and is closely associated with the development of various diseases. The demand for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing has been increasing, and Illumina and MGI are two commonly used sequencing platforms for capture-based mtDNA sequencing. However, there is currently no systematic comparison of mtDNA sequencing performance between these two platforms. To address this gap, we compared the performance of capture-based mtDNA sequencing between Illumina's NovaSeq 6000 and MGI's DNBSEQ-T7 using tissue, peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC), formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, plasma, and urine samples.
resultsOur analysis indicated a high degree of consistency between the two platforms in terms of sequencing quality, GC content, and coverage. In terms of data output, DNBSEQ-T7 showed higher rates of clean data and duplication compared to NovaSeq 6000. Conversely, the amount of mtDNA data obtained by per gigabyte sequencing data was significantly lower in DNBSEQ-T7 compared to NovaSeq 6000. In terms of detection mtDNA copy number, both platforms exhibited good consistency in all sample types. When it comes to detection of mtDNA mutations in tissue, FFPE, and PBMC samples, the two platforms also showed good consistency. However, when detecting mtDNA mutations in plasma and urine samples, significant differenceof themutation number detected was observed between the two platforms. For mtDNA sequencing of plasma and urine samples, a wider range of DNA fragment size distribution was found in NovaSeq 6000 when compared to DNBSEQ-T7. Additionally, two platforms exhibited different characteristics of mtDNA fragment end preference.
conclusionsIn summary, the two platforms generally showed good consistency in capture-based mtDNA sequencing. However, it is necessary to consider the data preferences generated by two sequencing platforms when plasma and urine samples were analyzed.
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.