Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three assays for in-solution enrichment of ancient human DNA at more than a million SNPs

Rohland, Nadin, Mallick, Swapan, Mah, Matthew, Maier, Robert, Patterson, Nick, Reich, David·2022·Genome Research
DOI 10.1101/gr.276728.122PMC PMC9808625

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The strategy of in-solution enrichment for hundreds of thousands of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) has been used to analyze >70% of individuals with genome-scale ancient DNA published to date. This approach makes it economical to study ancient samples with low proportions of human DNA and increases the rate of conversion of sampled remains into interpretable data. So far, nearly all such data have been generated using a set of bait sequences targeting about 1.24 million SNPs (the “1240k reagent”), but synthesis of the reagent has been cost-effective for only a few laboratories. In 2021, two companies, Daicel Arbor Biosciences and Twist Bioscience, made available assays that target the same core set of SNPs along with supplementary content. We test all three assays on a common set of 27 ancient DNA libraries and show that all three are effective at enriching many hundreds of thousands of SNPs. For all assays, one round of enrichment produces data that are as useful as two. In our testing, the “Twist Ancient DNA” assay produces the highest coverages, greatest uniformity on targeted positions, and almost no bias toward enriching one allele more than another relative to shotgun sequencing. We also identify hundreds of thousands of targeted SNPs for which there is minimal allelic bias when comparing 1240k data to either shotgun or Twist data. This facilitates coanalysis of the large data sets that have been generated using 1240k and Twist capture, as well as shotgun sequencing approaches.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/gr.276728.122

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Characterization of enrichment. (A) Degree of enrichment as a function of distance from 1,150,639 targeted autosomal SNPs (position 0) for the 15 high-coverage libraries at the bottom of Table 1; enrichment at the SNP relative to positions 100 bp away is shown in the legend. (B) Variation in coverage across SNP targets for the same libraries. (C) Proportion of nucleotides that are guanine or cytosine (GC) has a downward bias relative to the unenriched library for Arbor, upward for 1240k, and little bias for Twist Ancient DNA; this analysis uses data from the first 10 libraries in Table 1 with full results from both rounds of capture. (D) All assays preferentially enrich longer molecules, with the least length effect for Twist Ancient DNA (medians in legend, 10 libraries of data). All plots reflect data before removal of duplicated sequences as our goal is to study effectiveness of enrichment on a per-molecule basis.
Figure 1. Characterization of enrichment. (A) Degree of enrichment as a function of distance from 1,150,639 targeted autosomal SNPs (position 0) for the 15 high-coverage libraries at the bottom of Table 1; enrichment at the SNP relative to positions 100 bp away is shown in the legend. (B) Variation in coverage across SNP targets for the same libraries. (C) Proportion of nucleotides that are guanine or cytosine (GC) has a downward bias relative to the unenriched library for Arbor, upward for 1240k, and little bias for Twist Ancient DNA; this analysis uses data from the first 10 libraries in Table 1 with full results from both rounds of capture. (D) All assays preferentially enrich longer molecules, with the least length effect for Twist Ancient DNA (medians in legend, 10 libraries of data). All plots reflect data before removal of duplicated sequences as our goal is to study effectiveness of enrichment on a per-molecule basis.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Performance of the three assays over a range of sequencing depths. For 10 libraries (five double-stranded [DS], and five single-stranded [SS] libraries) with varying percentages of human sequences before enrichment (0.1%–86.7%), we show the number of unique SNPs at different levels of sequencing depth (based on down-sampling). For a typical amount of sequencing of a capture experiment (25 million merged sequences), and after removal of duplicated sequences, the Twist Ancient DNA assay always enriches for more SNPs than the other two assays. For most experiments, more SNPs are retrieved after one round of enrichment than after two. We did not perform the two-enrichment-round Twist Ancient DNA experiment for the two libraries with the highest endogenous content (S1633.E1.L1 and S10871.E1.L6).
Figure 2. Performance of the three assays over a range of sequencing depths. For 10 libraries (five double-stranded [DS], and five single-stranded [SS] libraries) with varying percentages of human sequences before enrichment (0.1%–86.7%), we show the number of unique SNPs at different levels of sequencing depth (based on down-sampling). For a typical amount of sequencing of a capture experiment (25 million merged sequences), and after removal of duplicated sequences, the Twist Ancient DNA assay always enriches for more SNPs than the other two assays. For most experiments, more SNPs are retrieved after one round of enrichment than after two. We did not perform the two-enrichment-round Twist Ancient DNA experiment for the two libraries with the highest endogenous content (S1633.E1.L1 and S10871.E1.L6).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Population genetic effects of enrichment and an effective filter for reducing bias. (A) Projection of data from 15 libraries in the last rows of Table 1 onto a PCA of modern West Eurasians (gray squares) shows nearly identical positions regardless of data source. (B) We compute symmetry statistics of the form f4(library 1 − reagent 1, library 1 − reagent 2; library 2 − reagent 1, library 2 − reagent 2) and plot Z-scores for all 105 = 15 × 14/2 pairwise comparisons of the libraries (box-and-whisker plots show range, 25th and 75th percentiles, and mean). The statistics involving Arbor Complete are shown in green; remaining comparisons involving 1240k are shown in red; and the Twist–shotgun comparison is in blue. We show results both for all SNPs targets (left) and after applying the bias filter retaining a subset of 42% of autosomal SNPs (right). Results for this figure reflect data after removal of duplicated sequences.
Figure 3. Population genetic effects of enrichment and an effective filter for reducing bias. (A) Projection of data from 15 libraries in the last rows of Table 1 onto a PCA of modern West Eurasians (gray squares) shows nearly identical positions regardless of data source. (B) We compute symmetry statistics of the form f4(library 1 − reagent 1, library 1 − reagent 2; library 2 − reagent 1, library 2 − reagent 2) and plot Z-scores for all 105 = 15 × 14/2 pairwise comparisons of the libraries (box-and-whisker plots show range, 25th and 75th percentiles, and mean). The statistics involving Arbor Complete are shown in green; remaining comparisons involving 1240k are shown in red; and the Twist–shotgun comparison is in blue. We show results both for all SNPs targets (left) and after applying the bias filter retaining a subset of 42% of autosomal SNPs (right). Results for this figure reflect data after removal of duplicated sequences.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Variation in reference bias across SNPs. (A) All analyses are based on sequences from loci ascertained as highly likely to be heterozygous, corrected for stochastic error in the estimates using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm described in Supplemental Text S2. (B) Mean and standard deviation of EM-corrected distributions stratified by sequence length (longer sequences align more reliably so have less bias). Results for this figure reflect data before removal of duplicated sequences.
Figure 4. Variation in reference bias across SNPs. (A) All analyses are based on sequences from loci ascertained as highly likely to be heterozygous, corrected for stochastic error in the estimates using the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm described in Supplemental Text S2. (B) Mean and standard deviation of EM-corrected distributions stratified by sequence length (longer sequences align more reliably so have less bias). Results for this figure reflect data before removal of duplicated sequences.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. 10.1126/science.1188046 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.10.002 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/s41586-019-1251-y · DOI
  4. 10.1038/s41586-021-04241-4 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1038/s41596-020-0338-0 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/s41467-020-15020-6 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.2144/000114320 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1093/nar/gkz972 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1038/s41586-020-1929-1 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/s41586-022-04430-9 · DOI
  13. 10.1371/journal.pone.0014004 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nature25778 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41586-021-04287-4 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/s41596-018-0050-5 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/s41588-020-00756-0 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/s41588-019-0484-x · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1093/hmg/ddq333 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/s41588-019-0481-0 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/s41588-020-00735-5 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 163

Metadata

Authors
Rohland, N., Mallick, S., Mah, M., Maier, R., Patterson, N., & Reich, D.
ORCID
Venue
Genome Research
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Published
2022-11
Volume
32
Issue
11-12
Pages
2068-2078
ISSN
  • 1088-9051
  • 1549-5469
DOI
10.1101/gr.276728.122
PMC
PMC9808625
Cited by
163
References
15
Language
en
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (HG012287)
  • Allen Discovery Center program
  • Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group
  • Paul G. Allen Family Foundation
  • John Templeton Foundation (61220)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute

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