Rapid turnaround multiplex sequencing of SARS-CoV-2: comparing tiling amplicon protocol performance
Constantinides, B.; Webster, H.; Gentry, J.; Bastable, J.; Dunn, L.; Oakley, S.; Swann, J.; Sanderson, N. D.; Fowler, P. W.; Ma, G.; Rodger, G.; Barrett, L.; Jeffery, K. J.; Peto, T. E. J.; Stoesser, N.; Street, T. L.; Crook, D. W.
Show abstract
Genome sequencing is pivotal to SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, elucidating the emergence and global dissemination of acquired genetic mutations. Amplicon sequencing has proven very effective for sequencing SARS-CoV-2, but prevalent mutations disrupting primer binding sites have necessitated the revision of sequencing protocols in order to maintain performance for emerging virus lineages. We compared the performance of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) Midnight and ARTIC tiling amplicon protocols using 196 Delta lineage SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens, and 71 mostly Omicron lineage samples with S gene target failure (SGTF), reflecting circulating lineages in the United Kingdom during December 2021. 96-plexed nanopore sequencing was used. For Delta lineage samples, ARTIC v4 recovered the greatest proportion of [≥]90% complete genomes (81.1%; 159/193), followed by Midnight (71.5%; 138/193) and ARTIC v3 (34.1%; 14/41). Midnight protocol however yielded higher average genome recovery (mean 98.8%) than ARTIC v4 (98.1%) and ARTIC v3 (75.4%), resulting in less ambiguous final consensus assemblies overall. Explaining these observations were ARTIC v4s superior genome recovery in low viral titre/high cycle threshold (Ct) samples and inferior performance in high titre/low Ct samples, where Midnight excelled. We evaluated Omicron sequencing performance using a revised Midnight primer mix alongside prototype ARTIC v4.1 primers, head-to-head with the existing commercially available Midnight and ARTIC v4 protocols. The revised protocols both improved considerably the recovery of Omicron genomes and exhibited similar overall performance to one another. Revised Midnight protocol recovered [≥]90% complete genomes for 85.9% (61/71) of Omicron samples vs. 88.7% (63/71) for ARTIC v4.1. Approximate cost per sample for Midnight ({pound}12) is lower than ARTIC ({pound}16) while hands-on time is considerably lower for Midnight ([~]7 hours) than ARTIC protocols ([~]9.5 hours).
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of the ARTIC V4 and V4.1 SARS-CoV-2 primers and their impact on the detection of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 lineage defining mutations 95%
- Development of a nextflow bioinformatics pipeline for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 co-infection cases from genomic surveillance in the Philippines 95%
- Evaluation of the accuracy of bacterial genome reconstruction with Oxford Nanopore R10.4.1 long-read-only sequencing 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- ARTIC RSV amplicon sequencing reveals global RSV genotype dynamics. 96%
- vsgseq2: an updated pipeline for analysis of the diversity and abundance of population-wide Trypanosoma brucei VSG expression 92%
- Variation at Spike position 142 in SARS-CoV-2 Delta genomes is a technical artifact caused by dropout of a sequencing amplicon 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Multicenter benchmarking of short and long read wet lab protocols for clinical viral metagenomics 95%
- A simplified, amplicon-based method for whole genome sequencing of human respiratory syncytial viruses 93%
- Benchmark of thirteen bioinformatic pipelines for metagenomic virus diagnostics using datasets from clinical samples 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Targeted Hybridization Capture of SARS-CoV-2 and Metagenomics Enables Genetic Variant Discovery and Nasal Microbiome Insights 93%
- Evaluation of the Ultima Genomics UG 100 sequencer for low-cost, high-sensitivity metagenomic pathogen detection from cerebrospinal fluid 93%
- UltraSEQ: a universal bioinformatic platform for information-based clinical metagenomics and beyond 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.