New insights into the performance of human whole-exome capture platforms

Whole exome sequencing (WES) is increasingly used in research and diagnostics. WES users expect coverage of the entire coding region of known genes as well as sufficient read depth for the covered regions. It is, however, unknown which recent WES platform is most suitable to meet these expectations. We present insights into the performance of the most recent standard exome enrichment platforms from Agilent, NimbleGen and Illumina applied to six different DNA samples by two sequencing vendors per platform. Our results suggest that both Agilent and NimbleGen overall perform better than Illumina and that the high enrichment performance of Agilent is stable among samples and between vendors, whereas NimbleGen is only able to achieve vendor- and sample-specific best exome coverage. Moreover, the recent Agilent platform overall captures more coding exons with sufficient read depth than NimbleGen and Illumina. Due to considerable gaps in effective exome coverage, however, the three platforms cannot capture all known coding exons alone or in combination, requiring improvement. Our data emphasize the importance of evaluation of updated platform versions and suggest that enrichment-free whole genome sequencing can overcome the limitations of WES in sufficiently covering coding exons, especially GC-rich regions, and in characterizing structural variants.

[1]  Emily H Turner,et al.  Targeted Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing of Twelve Human Exomes , 2009, Nature.

[2]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  A Post‐Hoc Comparison of the Utility of Sanger Sequencing and Exome Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Heterogeneous Diseases , 2013, Human mutation.

[3]  Hugo Y. K. Lam,et al.  Performance comparison of exome DNA sequencing technologies , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[4]  ENCODEConsortium,et al.  An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome , 2012, Nature.

[5]  Catherine Boileau,et al.  Evaluation and application of denaturing HPLC for mutation detection in Marfan syndrome: Identification of 20 novel mutations and two novel polymorphisms in the FBN1 gene , 2002, Human mutation.

[6]  H. Hakonarson,et al.  Low concordance of multiple variant-calling pipelines: practical implications for exome and genome sequencing , 2013, Genome Medicine.

[7]  Data production leads,et al.  An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome , 2012 .

[8]  Joel Gelernter,et al.  The Role and Challenges of Exome Sequencing in Studies of Human Diseases , 2013, Front. Genet..

[9]  J. Lupski,et al.  Human genome sequencing in health and disease. , 2012, Annual review of medicine.

[10]  Mustafa Tekin,et al.  The promise of whole-exome sequencing in medical genetics , 2013, Journal of Human Genetics.

[11]  J. Zook,et al.  Integrating human sequence data sets provides a resource of benchmark SNP and indel genotype calls , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[12]  Magalie S Leduc,et al.  Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Bernhard Steiner,et al.  Hemizygous deletion of COL3A1, COL5A2, and MSTN causes a complex phenotype with aortic dissection: a lesson for and from true haploinsufficiency , 2010, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[14]  M. Brown,et al.  Whole exome sequencing is an efficient, sensitive and specific method of mutation detection in osteogenesis imperfecta and Marfan syndrome. , 2013, BoneKEy reports.

[15]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Summarizing and correcting the GC content bias in high-throughput sequencing , 2012, Nucleic acids research.

[16]  W. Berger,et al.  Identification and in silico analyses of novel TGFBR1 and TGFBR2 mutations in Marfan syndrome‐related disorders , 2006, Human mutation.

[17]  W. Berger,et al.  Large genomic fibrillin-1 (FBN1) gene deletions provide evidence for true haploinsufficiency in Marfan syndrome , 2007, Human Genetics.

[18]  Hui Jiang,et al.  Comprehensive comparison of three commercial human whole-exome capture platforms , 2011, Genome Biology.

[19]  Alicja Szabelska,et al.  Precise breakpoint localization of large genomic deletions using PacBio and Illumina next-generation sequencers. , 2013, BioTechniques.

[20]  Heikki Joensuu,et al.  Comparison of solution-based exome capture methods for next generation sequencing , 2011, Genome Biology.

[21]  Jiantao Wu,et al.  Copy Number Variation detection from 1000 Genomes project exon capture sequencing data , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  R. Wilson,et al.  BreakDancer: An algorithm for high resolution mapping of genomic structural variation , 2009, Nature Methods.

[23]  M. Spector,et al.  A comparative analysis of exome capture , 2011, Genome Biology.

[24]  E. Banks,et al.  Discovery and statistical genotyping of copy-number variation from whole-exome sequencing depth. , 2012, American journal of human genetics.

[25]  I. Tikhonova,et al.  Genetic diagnosis by whole exome capture and massively parallel DNA sequencing , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Roland Eils,et al.  Coverage Bias and Sensitivity of Variant Calling for Four Whole-genome Sequencing Technologies , 2013, PloS one.

[27]  Bradley P. Coe,et al.  Genome structural variation discovery and genotyping , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[28]  S. Hochreiter,et al.  cn.MOPS: mixture of Poissons for discovering copy number variations in next-generation sequencing data with a low false discovery rate , 2012, Nucleic acids research.

[29]  Euan A Ashley,et al.  Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. , 2014, JAMA.

[30]  Alison M. Meynert,et al.  Quantifying single nucleotide variant detection sensitivity in exome sequencing , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[31]  Eivind Hovig,et al.  Performance comparison of four exome capture systems for deep sequencing , 2014, BMC Genomics.

[32]  Euan A Ashley,et al.  Performance comparison of whole-genome sequencing platforms , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.