Darlene D. Wagner , Grace Nabakooza , Nehalraza Momin , Rachel L. Marine
{"title":"Illumina MiSeq和iSeq平台为病毒基因组测序提供可比较的结果。","authors":"Darlene D. Wagner , Grace Nabakooza , Nehalraza Momin , Rachel L. Marine","doi":"10.1016/j.jviromet.2025.115202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Summary</h3><div>Illumina MiSeq and iSeq are widely used short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. The MiSeq instrument is specialized for mid-range throughput, while the iSeq instrument has lower throughput but is less expensive and simpler to operate. Several studies have compared Illumina platforms for sequencing of a variety of specimen types, but very few have quantified differences in sequencing quality, particularly for viruses. This study compared read quality, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling, and assembly metrics for SARS-CoV-2, norovirus, and poliovirus samples sequenced on both platforms. MiSeq and iSeq trimmed reads exhibited equivalent percentage of bases ≥ Q30 (% ≥ Q30) and equivalent reference mapping percentages. SNP concordance rates between the two platforms were 41 out of 43 (95.3 %) for SARS-CoV-2, 1628 out of 1633 (99.7 %) for norovirus, and 9 out of 11 (81.8 %) for poliovirus. Within each of the three virus groups, MiSeq and iSeq assemblies had equivalent N50 and maximum contig lengths. Despite platform-specific differences in the sequencing chemistry and flow cell design, MiSeq and iSeq offered comparable data quality, indicating that using either platform should produce concordant results for viral genomic sequencing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17663,"journal":{"name":"Journal of virological methods","volume":"338 ","pages":"Article 115202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Illumina MiSeq and iSeq platforms yield comparable results for viral genomic sequencing\",\"authors\":\"Darlene D. Wagner , Grace Nabakooza , Nehalraza Momin , Rachel L. Marine\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jviromet.2025.115202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Summary</h3><div>Illumina MiSeq and iSeq are widely used short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. The MiSeq instrument is specialized for mid-range throughput, while the iSeq instrument has lower throughput but is less expensive and simpler to operate. Several studies have compared Illumina platforms for sequencing of a variety of specimen types, but very few have quantified differences in sequencing quality, particularly for viruses. This study compared read quality, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling, and assembly metrics for SARS-CoV-2, norovirus, and poliovirus samples sequenced on both platforms. MiSeq and iSeq trimmed reads exhibited equivalent percentage of bases ≥ Q30 (% ≥ Q30) and equivalent reference mapping percentages. SNP concordance rates between the two platforms were 41 out of 43 (95.3 %) for SARS-CoV-2, 1628 out of 1633 (99.7 %) for norovirus, and 9 out of 11 (81.8 %) for poliovirus. Within each of the three virus groups, MiSeq and iSeq assemblies had equivalent N50 and maximum contig lengths. Despite platform-specific differences in the sequencing chemistry and flow cell design, MiSeq and iSeq offered comparable data quality, indicating that using either platform should produce concordant results for viral genomic sequencing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17663,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of virological methods\",\"volume\":\"338 \",\"pages\":\"Article 115202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of virological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093425000953\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of virological methods","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166093425000953","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Illumina MiSeq and iSeq platforms yield comparable results for viral genomic sequencing
Summary
Illumina MiSeq and iSeq are widely used short-read next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. The MiSeq instrument is specialized for mid-range throughput, while the iSeq instrument has lower throughput but is less expensive and simpler to operate. Several studies have compared Illumina platforms for sequencing of a variety of specimen types, but very few have quantified differences in sequencing quality, particularly for viruses. This study compared read quality, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling, and assembly metrics for SARS-CoV-2, norovirus, and poliovirus samples sequenced on both platforms. MiSeq and iSeq trimmed reads exhibited equivalent percentage of bases ≥ Q30 (% ≥ Q30) and equivalent reference mapping percentages. SNP concordance rates between the two platforms were 41 out of 43 (95.3 %) for SARS-CoV-2, 1628 out of 1633 (99.7 %) for norovirus, and 9 out of 11 (81.8 %) for poliovirus. Within each of the three virus groups, MiSeq and iSeq assemblies had equivalent N50 and maximum contig lengths. Despite platform-specific differences in the sequencing chemistry and flow cell design, MiSeq and iSeq offered comparable data quality, indicating that using either platform should produce concordant results for viral genomic sequencing.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Virological Methods focuses on original, high quality research papers that describe novel and comprehensively tested methods which enhance human, animal, plant, bacterial or environmental virology and prions research and discovery.
The methods may include, but not limited to, the study of:
Viral components and morphology-
Virus isolation, propagation and development of viral vectors-
Viral pathogenesis, oncogenesis, vaccines and antivirals-
Virus replication, host-pathogen interactions and responses-
Virus transmission, prevention, control and treatment-
Viral metagenomics and virome-
Virus ecology, adaption and evolution-
Applied virology such as nanotechnology-
Viral diagnosis with novelty and comprehensive evaluation.
We seek articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and laboratory protocols that include comprehensive technical details with statistical confirmations that provide validations against current best practice, international standards or quality assurance programs and which advance knowledge in virology leading to improved medical, veterinary or agricultural practices and management.