ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Utility Analyses of AVITI Sequencing Chemistry.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: DNA sequencing is a critical tool in modern biology. Over the last two decades, it has been revolutionized by the advent of massively parallel sequencing, leading to significant advances in the genome and transcriptome sequencing of various organisms. Nevertheless, challenges with accuracy, lack of competitive options and prohibitive costs associated with high throughput parallel short-read sequencing persist. Results: Here, we conduct a comparative analysis using matched DNA and RNA short-reads assays between Element Biosciences' AVITI and Illumina's NextSeq 550 chemistries. Similar comparisons were evaluated for synthetic long-read sequencing for RNA and targeted single-cell transcripts between the AVITI and Illumina's NovaSeq 6000. For both DNA and RNA short-read applications, the study found that the AVITI produced significantly higher per sequence quality scores. For PCR-free DNA libraries, we observed an average 89.7% lower experimentally determined error rate when using the AVITI chemistry, compared to the NextSeq 550. For short-read RNA quantification, AVITI platform had an average of 32.5% lower error rate than that for NextSeq 550. With regards to synthetic long-read mRNA and targeted synthetic long read single cell mRNA sequencing, both platforms' respective chemistries performed comparably in quantification of genes and isoforms. The AVITI displayed a marginally lower error rate for long reads, with fewer chemistry-specific errors and a higher mutation detection rate. Conclusion: These results point to the potential of the AVITI platform as a competitive candidate in high-throughput short read sequencing analyses when juxtaposed with the Illumina NextSeq 550.
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.