↓ Skip to main content

A Short‐Read Multiplex Sequencing Method for Reliable, Cost‐Effective and High‐Throughput Genotyping in Large‐Scale Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Human Mutation, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
A Short‐Read Multiplex Sequencing Method for Reliable, Cost‐Effective and High‐Throughput Genotyping in Large‐Scale Studies
Published in
Human Mutation, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/humu.22439
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongzhi Cao, Yu Wang, Wei Zhang, Xianghua Chai, Xiandong Zhang, Shiping Chen, Fan Yang, Caifen Zhang, Yulai Guo, Ying Liu, Zhoubiao Tang, Caifen Chen, Yaxin Xue, Hefu Zhen, Yinyin Xu, Bin Rao, Tao Liu, Meiru Zhao, Wenwei Zhang, Yingrui Li, Xiuqing Zhang, Laurent C. A. M. Tellier, Anders Krogh, Karsten Kristiansen, Jun Wang, Jian Li

Abstract

Accurate genotyping is important for genetic testing. Sanger sequencing-based typing is the gold standard for genotyping, but it has been underused, due to its high cost and low throughput. In contrast, short-read sequencing provides inexpensive and high-throughput sequencing, holding great promise for reaching the goal of cost-effective and high-throughput genotyping. However, the short-read length and the paucity of appropriate genotyping methods, pose a major challenge. Here, we present RCHSBT-reliable, cost-effective and high-throughput sequence based typing pipeline-which takes short sequence reads as input, but uses a unique variant calling, haploid sequence assembling algorithm, can accurately genotype with greater effective length per amplicon than even Sanger sequencing reads. The RCHSBT method was tested for the human MHC loci HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, HLA-DQB1, and HLA-DRB1, upon 96 samples using Illumina PE 150 reads. Amplicons as long as 950 bp were readily genotyped, achieving 100% typing concordance between RCHSBT-called genotypes and genotypes previously called by Sanger sequence. Genotyping throughput was increased over 10 times, and cost was reduced over five times, for RCHSBT as compared with Sanger sequence genotyping. We thus demonstrate RCHSBT to be a genotyping method comparable to Sanger sequencing-based typing in quality, while being more cost-effective, and higher throughput.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 38%
Student > Master 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 48%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 4 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 November 2013.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Human Mutation
#2,348
of 2,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,483
of 222,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Mutation
#35
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,982 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 222,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.