The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Hybridization Capture Versus Amplicon‐Based Methods for Whole‐Exome Sequencing
Open accessAbstract
Next-generation sequencing has aided characterization of genomic variation. While whole-genome sequencing may capture all possible mutations, whole-exome sequencing remains cost-effective and captures most phenotype-altering mutations. Initial strategies for exome enrichment utilized a hybridization-based capture approach. Recently, amplicon-based methods were designed to simplify preparation and utilize smaller DNA inputs. We evaluated two hybridization capture-based and two amplicon-based whole-exome sequencing approaches, utilizing both Illumina and Ion Torrent sequencers, comparing on-target alignment, uniformity, and variant calling. While the amplicon methods had higher on-target rates, the hybridization capture-based approaches demonstrated better uniformity. All methods identified many of the same single-nucleotide variants, but each amplicon-based method missed variants detected by the other three methods and reported additional variants discordant with all three other technologies. Many of these potential false positives or negatives appear to result from limited coverage, low variant frequency, vicinity to read starts/ends, or the need for platform-specific variant calling algorithms. All methods demonstrated effective copy-number variant calling when evaluated against a single-nucleotide polymorphism array. This study illustrates some differences between whole-exome sequencing approaches, highlights the need for selecting appropriate variant calling based on capture method, and will aid laboratories in selecting their preferred approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features
Quinlan, A. R., & Hall, I. M. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033 · Cited by 27,437
The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity
Barretina, J., Caponigro, G., Stransky, N., Venkatesan, K., Margolin, A. A., Kim, S., Wilson, C. J., Lehár, J., Kryukov, G. V., Sonkin, D., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11003 · Cited by 7,950
Sequencing technologies – the next generation
Metzker, M. L. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2626 · Cited by 7,066
Frampton, G. M., Fichtenholtz, A., Otto, G. A., Wang, K., Downing, S. R., He, J., Schnall-Levin, M., White, J., Sanford, E. M., An, P., et al. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2696 · Cited by 2,157 · cited 1×
“We examined specifically high-level copy gains and losses [Frampton et al., 2013; Pritchard et al., 2014] and therefore removed bases whose sequencing log2–CNV ratio was between –0.”
BackgroundGnirke, A., Melnikov, A., Maguire, J., Rogov, P., LeProust, E. M., Brockman, W., Fennell, T., Giannoukos, G., Fisher, S., Russ, C., et al. (2009) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1523 · Cited by 1,433 · cited 5×
“Yet, such array-mediated capture functions best on DNA fragments around 500-bp long, thus limiting targeting of closely spaced regions [Hodges et al., 2007; Gnirke et al., 2009], such as human exons [Clamp et al., 2007].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDirect selection of human genomic loci by microarray hybridization
Albert, T. J., Molla, M. N., Muzny, D. M., Nazareth, L., Wheeler, D., Song, X., Richmond, T. A., Middle, C. M., Rodesch, M. J., Packard, C. J., et al. (2007) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth1111 · Cited by 681
Distinguishing protein-coding and noncoding genes in the human genome
Clamp, M., Fry, B., Kamal, M., Xie, X., Cuff, J., Lin, M. F., Kellis, M., Lindblad-Toh, K., & Lander, E. S. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0709013104 · Cited by 624
Cited by
Next-generation sequencing of newborn screening genes: the accuracy of short-read mapping
Trier, C., Fournous, G., Strand, J. M., Stray-Pedersen, A., Pettersen, R. D., & Rowe, A. D. (2020) · npj Genomic Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41525-020-00142-z · Cited by 20
Valle-Silva, G., Frontanilla, T. S., Ayala, J., Donadi, E. A., Simões, A. L., Castelli, E. C., & Mendes-Junior, C. T. (2022) · Forensic Science International Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2022.102676 · Cited by 13
Marcuzzi, O., Calcaterra, F., Olivera, L. H., Arizmendi, A., Henry, M. R. J. M., Cardoso, D. C., Echeverri, A. M. L., Liron, J. P., Fernández, M. E., Andrade de Oliveira, D. A., et al. (2025) · BMC Genomic Data · doi:10.1186/s12863-025-01365-8 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Samorodnitsky, E., Jewell, B. M., Hagopian, R., Miya, J., Wing, M. R., Lyon, E., Damodaran, S., Bhatt, D., Reeser, J. W., Datta, J., & Roychowdhury, S.
- Venue
- Human Mutation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-07-15
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 903-914
- ISSN
- 1059-7794 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-1004
- OpenAlex
- W1934039027
- Cited by
- 274
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 10.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of Hybridization Capture Versus Amplicon‐Based Methods for Whole‐Exome Sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/humu.22825
- The paper
- Samorodnitsky, E., Jewell, B. M., Hagopian, R., Miya, J., Wing, M. R., Lyon, E., Damodaran, S., Bhatt, D., Reeser, J. W., Datta, J., & Roychowdhury, S. (2015). Evaluation of Hybridization Capture Versus Amplicon‐Based Methods for Whole‐Exome Sequencing. Human Mutation. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22825
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
