Cited by 316Genomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsForensic and Genetic Research

Length and GC-Biases During Sequencing Library Amplification: A Comparison of Various Polymerase-Buffer Systems with Ancient and Modern DNA Sequencing Libraries

Open access
Dabney, Jesse, Meyer, Matthias·2012·BioTechniques

Abstract

High-throughput sequencing technologies frequently necessitate the use of PCR for sequencing library amplification. PCR is a sometimes enigmatic process and is known to introduce biases. Here we perform a simple amplification-sequencing assay using 10 commercially available polymerase-buffer systems to amplify libraries prepared from both modern and ancient DNA. We compare the performance of the polymerases with respect to a previously uncharacterized template length bias, as well as GC-content bias, and find that simply avoiding certain polymerase can dramatically decrease the occurrence of both. For amplification of ancient DNA, we found that some commonly used polymerases strongly bias against amplification of endogenous DNA in favor of GC-rich microbial contamination, in our case reducing the fraction of endogenous sequences to almost half.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2144/000113809

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • GC content of individual sequences affects PCR amplification efficiency in biological DNA.

    “GC content of individual sequences were previously found to affect PCR amplification efficiency in biological DNA15–17.”

    From Quantifying Molecular Bias in DNA Data Storage (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

  • Previous studies observed PCR bias in genomic biological sample amplification.

    “Although previous studies observed PCR bias in genomic biological sample amplification15–17, it remained unclear whether such bias is significant in DNA data storage.”

    From Quantifying Molecular Bias in DNA Data Storage (2019) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dabney, J., & Meyer, M.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
BioTechniques
Published
2012-02
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
87-94
ISSN
  • 0736-6205 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-9818
OpenAlex
W1999518415
Cited by
316
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 3
FWCI
8.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioTechniques (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Max Planck Society
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
Keywords
PCR bias, GC content bias, ancient DNA, microbial contamination, endogenous DNA, PCR amplification
MeSH terms
Base Composition, Buffers, DNA-Directed DNA Polymerase, Humans, Gene Library, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques

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