ArticleJournal of virological methods2025
Illumina MiSeq and iSeq platforms yield comparable results for viral genomic sequencing.
Article in Journal of virological methods, 2025. 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.
- Near-real-time whole-genome sequencing in hospital infection control: a narrative review.Infection · 2026Review
- Identification, functional analysis, and clinical applications of defective viral genomes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Illumina MiSeq and iSeq are widely used short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. The MiSeq instrument is specialized for mid-range throughput, while the iSeq instrument has lower throughput but is less expensive and simpler to operate. Several studies have compared Illumina platforms for sequencing of a variety of specimen types, but very few have quantified differences in sequencing quality, particularly for viruses. This study compared read quality, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling, and assembly metrics for SARS-CoV-2, norovirus, and poliovirus samples sequenced on both platforms. MiSeq and iSeq trimmed reads exhibited equivalent percentage of bases ≥ Q30 (% ≥ Q30) and equivalent reference mapping percentages. SNP concordance rates between the two platforms were 41 out of 43 (95.3 %) for SARS-CoV-2, 1628 out of 1633 (99.7 %) for norovirus, and 9 out of 11 (81.8 %) for poliovirus. Within each of the three virus groups, MiSeq and iSeq assemblies had equivalent N50 and maximum contig lengths. Despite platform-specific differences in the sequencing chemistry and flow cell design, MiSeq and iSeq offered comparable data quality, indicating that using either platform should produce concordant results for viral genomic sequencing.
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.