↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Quality Control in Targeted Next-generation Sequencing Library Preparation

Overview of attention for article published in Genomics, Protenomics & Biooinformatics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of Quality Control in Targeted Next-generation Sequencing Library Preparation
Published in
Genomics, Protenomics & Biooinformatics, July 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.gpb.2016.04.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rouven Nietsch, Jan Haas, Alan Lai, Daniel Oehler, Stefan Mester, Karen S. Frese, Farbod Sedaghat-Hamedani, Elham Kayvanpour, Andreas Keller, Benjamin Meder

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is getting routinely used in the diagnosis of hereditary diseases, such as human cardiomyopathies. Hence, it is of utter importance to secure high quality sequencing data, enabling the identification of disease-relevant mutations or the conclusion of negative test results. During the process of sample preparation, each protocol for target enrichment library preparation has its own requirements for quality control (QC); however, there is little evidence on the actual impact of these guidelines on resulting data quality. In this study, we analyzed the impact of QC during the diverse library preparation steps of Agilent SureSelect XT target enrichment and Illumina sequencing. We quantified the parameters for a cohort of around 600 samples, which include starting amount of DNA, amount of sheared DNA, smallest and largest fragment size of the starting DNA; amount of DNA after the pre-PCR, and smallest and largest fragment size of the resulting DNA; as well as the amount of the final library, the corresponding smallest and largest fragment size, and the number of detected variants. Intriguingly, there is a high tolerance for variations in all QC steps, meaning that within the boundaries proposed in the current study, a considerable variance at each step of QC can be well tolerated without compromising NGS quality.

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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 22%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Master 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 24 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,737,737
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Genomics, Protenomics & Biooinformatics
#363
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,158
of 380,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genomics, Protenomics & Biooinformatics
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 380,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.