Systematic evaluation of library preparation methods and sequencing platforms for high-throughput whole genome bisulfite sequencing

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 9; no. 1; pp. 10383 - 16
• Main Authors: Zhou, Li, Ng, Hong Kiat, Drautz-Moses, Daniela I., Schuster, Stephan C., Beck, Stephan, Kim, Changhoon, Chambers, John Campbell, Loh, Marie
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 17-07-2019; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 38/61; 45/23; 631/61; 631/61/212; 631/61/514; Algorithms; Bisulfite; CpG islands; CpG Islands - genetics; DNA - genetics; DNA methylation; DNA Methylation - genetics; Epidemiology; Epigenomics - methods; Gene Library; Genome, Human - genetics; Genomes; Genomic Library; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Methylation; multidisciplinary; Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Sequence Analysis, DNA - methods; Software; Sulfites - chemistry; Whole Genome Sequencing - methods
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-46875-5

Whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS), with its ability to interrogate methylation status at single CpG site resolution epigenome-wide, is a powerful technique for use in molecular experiments. Here, we aim to advance strategies for accurate and efficient WGBS for application in future large-scale epidemiological studies. We systematically compared the performance of three WGBS library preparation methods with low DNA input requirement (Swift Biosciences Accel-NGS, Illumina TruSeq and QIAGEN QIAseq) on two state-of-the-art sequencing platforms (Illumina NovaSeq and HiSeq X), and also assessed concordance between data generated by WGBS and methylation arrays. Swift achieved the highest proportion of CpG sites assayed and effective coverage at 26x (P < 0.001). TruSeq suffered from the highest proportion of PCR duplicates, while QIAseq failed to deliver across all quality metrics. There was little difference in performance between NovaSeq and HiSeq X, with the exception of higher read duplication rate on the NovaSeq (P < 0.05), likely attributable to the higher cluster densities on its flow cells. Systematic biases exist between WGBS and methylation arrays, with lower precision observed for WGBS across the range of depths investigated. To achieve a level of precision broadly comparable to the methylation array, a minimum coverage of 100x is recommended.