4.7 Article

Evaluation of High-Throughput Sequencing for Identifying Known and Unknown Viruses in Biological Samples

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 3268-3275

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00850-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. Institut de Veille Sanitaire (Saint-Maurice, France)
  2. Institut Pasteur (France) [PATHODISC 301]
  3. Ile de France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High-throughput sequencing furnishes a large number of short sequence reads from uncloned DNA and has rapidly become a major tool for identifying viruses in biological samples, and in particular when the target sequence is undefined. In this study, we assessed the analytical sensitivity of a pipeline for detection of viruses in biological samples based on either the Roche-454 genome sequencer or Illumina genome analyzer platforms. We sequenced biological samples artificially spiked with a wide range of viruses with genomes composed of single or double-stranded DNA or RNA, including linear or circular single-stranded DNA. Viruses were added at a very low concentration most often corresponding to 3 or 0.8 times the validated level of detection of quantitative reverse transcriptase PCRs (RT-PCRs). For the viruses represented, or resembling those represented, in public nucleotide sequence databases, we show that the higher output of Illumina is associated with a much greater sensitivity, approaching that of optimized quantitative (RT-)PCRs. In this blind study, identification of viruses was achieved without incorrect identification. Nevertheless, at these low concentrations, the number of reads generated by the Illumina platform was too small to facilitate assembly of contigs without the use of a reference sequence, thus precluding detection of unknown viruses. When the virus load was sufficiently high, de novo assembly permitted the generation of long contigs corresponding to nearly full-length genomes and thus should facilitate the identification of novel viruses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据