Cited by 455Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques InnovationGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

Microdroplet-based PCR enrichment for large-scale targeted sequencing

Open access
Tewhey, Ryan, Warner, Jason B, Nakano, Masakazu, Libby, Brian, Medkova, Martina, David, Patricia H, Kotsopoulos, Steve K, Samuels, Michael L +8 more·2009·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Targeted enrichment of specific loci of the human genome is a promising approach to enable sequencing-based studies of genetic variation in large populations. Here we describe an enrichment approach based on microdroplet PCR, which enables 1.5 million amplifications in parallel. We sequenced six samples enriched by microdroplet or traditional singleplex PCR using primers targeting 435 exons of 47 genes. Both methods generated similarly high-quality data: 84% of the uniquely mapping reads fell within the targeted sequences; coverage was uniform across approximately 90% of targeted bases; sequence variants were called with >99% accuracy; and reproducibility between samples was high (r(2) = 0.9). We scaled the microdroplet PCR to 3,976 amplicons totaling 1.49 Mb of sequence, sequenced the resulting sample with both Illumina GAII and Roche 454, and obtained data with equally high specificity and sensitivity. Our results demonstrate that microdroplet technology is well suited for processing DNA for massively parallel enrichment of specific subsets of the human genome for targeted sequencing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.1583

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In genome research, an average sequence coverage depth of 30-fold has been accepted as sufficient for detecting single-nucleotide polymorphisms and nucleotide insertions or deletions.

    “In genome research, an average depth of sequence coverage of 30-fold has been accepted as sufficient for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and nucleotide insertion or deletion (indel) detection (15–22).”

    From Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing (2011) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results and Discussion section on coverage uniformity reports that 25-fold average coverage gave at least five reads for about 90% of targeted bases, and the paper evaluates SNP calls. It does not state that 30-fold coverage is an accepted sufficiency threshold or establish that depth for indel detection. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Target capture and next-generation sequencing have shown efficacy and, recently, scalability for resequencing human genomes and exomes.

    “Target capture and next-generation sequencing (NGS) have shown efficacy and, recently, scalability for resequencing human genomes and exomes, providing an alternative potential paradigm for comprehensive carrier testing (15–22).”

    From Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing (2011) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Abstract and scale-up Results report effective next-generation sequencing after targeted enrichment of human genomic regions, scaled to 1.49 Mb. The Discussion describes larger-scale exon capture reported by other studies. This paper does not demonstrate scalable capture and resequencing of whole human genomes or exomes; its own experiments cover subsets of them. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Microdroplet PCR should theoretically achieve a sensitivity of about 99%, albeit at higher cost.

    “Alternatively, microdroplet PCR should theoretically achieve a sensitivity of ~99%, albeit at higher cost (16, 47).”

    From Carrier testing for severe childhood recessive diseases by next-generation sequencing (2011) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Discussion reports that more than 99.6% of amplicons were successfully amplified, which supports a roughly 99% figure for amplification success, not necessarily sensitivity. It separately reports a 94.5% variant-detection rate for microdroplet PCR. Our copy does not establish the claimed higher cost relative to an alternative. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Preliminary experiments suggested that Agilent SureSelect hybrid capture and RainDance microdroplet polymerase chain reaction, but not Febit HybSelect microarray-based capture or Olink padlock probe ligation and PCR, yielded consistent target enrichment.

    “Preliminary experiments suggested that existing protocols for Agilent SureSelect hybrid capture (15) and RainDance microdroplet polymerase chain reaction (PCR) (16) but not Febit HybSelect microarray-based biochip capture (30) or Olink padlock probe ligation and PCR (31) yielded consistent target enrichment.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 27 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tewhey, R., Warner, J. B., Nakano, M., Libby, B., Medkova, M., David, P. H., Kotsopoulos, S. K., Samuels, M. L., Hutchison, J. B., Larson, J. W., Topol, E. J., Weiner, M. P., Harismendy, O., Olson, J., Link, D. R., & Frazer, K. A.
Affiliations
  • Scripps Research Institute (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
  • Link, Darren R
  • Frazer, Kelly A
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2009-11
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
1025-1031
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W2164112721
Cited by
454
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 58
FWCI
31.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2010-02-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r21ca125693-01)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (P50HL077107)
  • National Cancer Institute (1R21CA125693-01, R21 CA125693)
  • National Center for Research Resources (1U54RR025204-01, UL1RR025774)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Innovative Microfluidic and Catalytic Techniques Innovation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
target enrichment, microfluidics, targeted sequencing, exome sequencing, variant calling, human genome
MeSH terms
Base Sequence, Humans, Mutation, Reproducibility of Results, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Microfluidics

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