ArticlePloS one2024
Comparative analysis of whole exome sequencing kits for the canine genome.
Article in PloS one, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAs the public's interest in companion dogs grows, health issues in these animals are also emerging, necessitating the optimization of whole exome sequencing (WES) as a valuable method for disease prediction. While WES targeting the human genome is well established, WES targeting the canine genome is understudied, and there is a need to find effective analysis kits.
methodsWe compared and analyzed the performance of three WES kits from Twist and Agilent using the canine genome as the target to perform genetic analysis of canine diseases effectively. The levels of total reads, the duplication rate, and variant calling in canine genomic DNA samples from seven healthy dogs (three beagles, one bichon fry, one maltese, one welsh corgi, and one mixed breed) without any interventions were examined through WES via Twist and Agilent kits.
resultsWe found that while Twist had the lowest total read number, the number of reads in the SSXT series was significantly (P<0.05) greater. Twist showed low evenness and high standard deviation, but the SSXT series showed relatively high evenness. Compared with Twist, the SSXT series from a depth of 30× presented a significantly (P<0.05) greater target ratio. Among the four kits, the significantly lowest duplicate ratio was confirmed for SSXT (O/N) (30% lower than Twist).
conclusionThe most important performance of the kit, the number of variants detected, was 48,302 for Twist and 130,506 for SSXT (O/N). On the basis of the performance comparison results, SSXT (O/N) was found to have the best performance.
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.