Next-generation Methods
The high demand for low-cost sequencing has driven the development of high-throughput sequencing (or next-generation sequencing) technologies that parallelize the sequencing process, producing thousands or millions of sequences at once. High-throughput sequencing technologies are intended to lower the cost of DNA sequencing beyond what is possible with standard dye-terminator methods. In ultra-high-throughput sequencing as many as 500,000 sequencing-by-synthesis operations may be run in parallel.
| Method | Single-molecule real-time sequencing (Pacific Bio) | Ion semiconductor (Ion Torrent sequencing) | Pyrosequencing (454) | Sequencing by synthesis (Illumina) | Sequencing by ligation (SOLiD sequencing) | Chain termination (Sanger sequencing) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Read length | 2900 bp average | 200 bp | 700 bp | 50 to 250 bp | 50+35 or 50+50 bp | 400 to 900 bp |
| Accuracy | 87% (read length mode), 99% (accuracy mode) | 98% | 99.9% | 98% | 99.9% | 99.9% |
| Reads per run | 35-75 thousand | up to 5 million | 1 million | up to 3 billion | 1.2 to 1.4 billion | N/A |
| Time per run | 30 minutes to 2 hours | 2 hours | 24 hours | 1 to 10 days, depending upon sequencer and specified read length | 1 to 2 weeks | 20 minutes to 3 hours |
| Cost per 1 million bases (in US$) | $2 | $1 | $10 | $0.05 to $0.15 | $0.13 | $2400 |
| Advantages | Longest read length. Fast. Detects 4mC, 5mC, 6mA. | Less expensive equipment. Fast. | Long read size. Fast. | Potential for high sequence yield, depending upon sequencer model and desired application. | Low cost per base. | Long individual reads. Useful for many applications. |
| Disadvantages | Low yield at high accuracy. Equipment can be very expensive. | Homopolymer errors. | Runs are expensive. Homopolymer errors. | Equipment can be very expensive. | Slower than other methods. | More expensive and impractical for larger sequencing projects. |
Read more about this topic: DNA Sequencing
Famous quotes containing the word methods:
“The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.””
—Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)