Cited by 1,047Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesGenomics and Rare DiseasesCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Detection of ultra-rare mutations by next-generation sequencing

Open access
Schmitt, Michael W., Kennedy, Scott R., Salk, Jesse J., Fox, Edward J., Hiatt, Joseph B., Loeb, Lawrence A.·2012·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Next-generation DNA sequencing promises to revolutionize clinical medicine and basic research. However, while this technology has the capacity to generate hundreds of billions of nucleotides of DNA sequence in a single experiment, the error rate of ∼1% results in hundreds of millions of sequencing mistakes. These scattered errors can be tolerated in some applications but become extremely problematic when “deep sequencing” genetically heterogeneous mixtures, such as tumors or mixed microbial populations. To overcome limitations in sequencing accuracy, we have developed a method termed Duplex Sequencing. This approach greatly reduces errors by independently tagging and sequencing each of the two strands of a DNA duplex. As the two strands are complementary, true mutations are found at the same position in both strands. In contrast, PCR or sequencing errors result in mutations in only one strand and can thus be discounted as technical error. We determine that Duplex Sequencing has a theoretical background error rate of less than one artifactual mutation per billion nucleotides sequenced. In addition, we establish that detection of mutations present in only one of the two strands of duplex DNA can be used to identify sites of DNA damage. We apply the method to directly assess the frequency and pattern of random mutations in mitochondrial DNA from human cells.

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 · 10.1073/pnas.1208715109

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Duplex sequencing enables the detection of mutations as low as 1 in 10^8 nucleotides sequenced.

    “duplex sequencing enables the detection of mutations as low as 1 in 10 8 nucleotides sequenced (17, 18).”

    From Why Cockayne syndrome patients do not get cancer despite their DNA repair deficiency (2016) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Abstract reports a theoretical background error rate of less than one artifactual mutation per 10^9 nucleotides, consistent with the potential to detect very rare mutations. But the Results (Mutant Recovery; page not provided) demonstrate recovery only down to one mutant molecule per 10,000 wild-type molecules, not detection at one in 10^8. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • DNA degradation with time (guanosine oxidation, cytosine deamination) interferes with rare allele detection.

    “DNA degradation with time (i.e. guanosine oxidation, cytosine deamination) is known to interfere with rare allele detection34”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schmitt, M. W., Kennedy, S. R., Salk, J. J., Fox, E. J., Hiatt, J. B., & Loeb, L. A.
Affiliations
  • Departments of aPathology,
  • Genome Sciences, and
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2012-08
Volume
109
Issue
36
Pages
14508-14513
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2143197030
Cited by
1,047
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 88 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 77 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 75 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 3
FWCI
22.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (T32AG000057, P01 AG0751, P01AG001751, F30AG039173, F30AG033485, Z01AG000751)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA102029, R01CA115802)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007266)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
duplex sequencing, sequencing error rate, strand-specific sequencing, DNA damage detection, mitochondrial DNA mutations, tumor heterogeneity, mixed culture
MeSH terms
DNA Damage, Humans, Mutation, Neoplasms, Oligonucleotides, Research Design, Metagenome, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

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