↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Systematic Comparison of Three Methods for Fragmentation of Long-Range PCR Products for Next Generation Sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
6 patents
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
400 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Systematic Comparison of Three Methods for Fragmentation of Long-Range PCR Products for Next Generation Sequencing
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0028240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellen Knierim, Barbara Lucke, Jana Marie Schwarz, Markus Schuelke, Dominik Seelow

Abstract

Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies are gaining importance in the routine clinical diagnostic setting. It is thus desirable to simplify the workflow for high-throughput diagnostics. Fragmentation of DNA is a crucial step for preparation of template libraries and various methods are currently known. Here we evaluated the performance of nebulization, sonication and random enzymatic digestion of long-range PCR products on the results of NGS. All three methods produced high-quality sequencing libraries for the 454 platform. However, if long-range PCR products of different length were pooled equimolarly, sequence coverage drastically dropped for fragments below 3,000 bp. All three methods performed equally well with regard to overall sequence quality (PHRED) and read length. Enzymatic fragmentation showed highest consistency between three library preparations but performed slightly worse than sonication and nebulization with regard to insertions/deletions in the raw sequence reads. After filtering for homopolymer errors, enzymatic fragmentation performed best if compared to the results of classic Sanger sequencing. As the overall performance of all three methods was equal with only minor differences, a fragmentation method can be chosen solely according to lab facilities, feasibility and experimental design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 400 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 383 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 103 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 72 18%
Student > Master 48 12%
Other 35 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 5%
Other 49 12%
Unknown 73 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 163 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 88 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 5%
Chemistry 9 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 2%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 78 20%