Assessing the readiness of Oxford Nanopore sequencing for clinical genomics applications

Performant analysis pipeline for ONT WGS data

ONT is less mature than other sequencing platforms in the availability of streamlined end-to-end analysis pipelines which also include dedicated clinically relevant software tools (e.g. SMN1/2 caller). Therefore, a scalable and accurate workflow must integrate variant-calling methodologies along with upstream base-calling, alignment steps, and quality metrics to ensure high-quality results (Supplementary Note S1).

At M42 we have sequenced one of the largest ONT cohorts to date, enabling us to consolidate a comprehensive pipeline for the analysis of ONT WGS data (Supplemental Figure S1). This pipeline captures improvements we had made in our primary and secondary analysis pipeline for ONT WGS data plus the addition of callers for CNV and STR. We run concurrent real-time base-calling using the Nvidia A100 tower connected to the PromethION 48 ONT sequencing instrument and the latest Dorado base-caller (https://github.com/nanoporetech/dorado). Concurrent base-calling means that both the DNA sequence and 5mC methylation marks on the DNA are extracted from the Fast5 file generated by the sequencer. Real-time base-calling indicates that such step completes virtually by the time the entire sequencing run completes. We then perform in the cloud (a high-performance computing platform tailored for large-scale genomic data analysis) the mapping to the reference genome sequence using Sentieon-accelerated Minimap2 (https://www.sentieon.com/). Subsequently the variant calling is performed with dedicated tools for SNV/INDEL (Clair3, (Zheng et al., 2022), SV (Sniffles2, (Smolka et al., 2024)), CNV (Spectre [https://github.com/fritzsedlazeck/Spectre]) and STR (Straglr, (Chiu et al., 2021) (see Methods and Supplemental Note 1). It is not the objective of this work to present a ready-to-use pipeline we claim is superior to other possibly existing ones. That said, we have made the code available as a reference for others.

A high-quality diverse set of 17 WGS reference samples sequenced on multiple HTS technologies

We identified 17 Coriell reference samples to assess the ability of high-throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies to accurately detect genetic variants. Coriell reference samples, sourced from the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, are well-characterized specimens for which biological material (e.g. cell lines or DNA) can be ordered and for which genetic “truth sets” exist and are available for the scientific community. For each of the 17 Coriell reference samples, we ordered cell lines (and not DNA) to avoid the fragmentation commonly observed in DNA, ensuring high-quality DNA for optimal long-read ONT sequencing (see Methods). We ordered cell lines for two types of Coriell reference samples. The first type included a parent-offspring trio (GM24143, GM24149 and GM24385) that has been extensively whole-genome sequenced by the scientific community, with publicly available truth sets of genetic variants (SNV and INDELS) across the genome (Zook et al., 2019) (Supplemental Table S2). The second type consisted of 14 samples derived from individuals affected by specific disease, for which the pathogenic genetic variants are well-documented (Supplemental Table S2). In each sample, we expect to detect the phenotype-causing genetic variant, which should be absent in the remaining samples (as they are known not to suffer the disease). We chose these specific Coriell reference samples to assess our accuracy to detect not only small variants – namely SNV and INDEL – but also other forms of genetic variation such as CNV deletions as well as STR.

We performed ∼30X WGS for each of the 17 Coriell cell lines on long-read ONT with R9 and R10 chemistries, and SRS technologies (Illumina and MGI). The R9 chemistry has been used since June 2016. It has been discontinued in July 2024 in favor of the new R10 chemistry. By including both ONT chemistries, we were able to estimate the differences of R10 relative to R9, a comparison which remains relatively unexplored outside GIAB (Ni et al., 2023). We performed WGS for two samples (GM27631 and GM03620) in replicates to assess intra- and inter-run variation. Altogether, the final dataset included 76 WGS samples.

We evaluated the quality of the WGS datasets. First, we confirmed that all 76 WGS samples passed the high-quality standards we defined (Supplemental Table S1 and Supplemental Table S3). We selected those standards based on previous experience from UK Biobank (Sudlow et al., 2015), 1000 Genomes (1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al., 2015) and GATK Best Practices (DePristo et al., 2011). Overall, we generated more than 100 Gb of WGS data per sample across all three platforms (Supplemental Figure S2 and Supplemental Table S3). The average genome coverage in ONT R9 samples (∼45X) was on average one third higher compared to the R10 samples (∼33X). This most likely mirrors the known lower productivity of R10 (Ni et al., 2023) that we confirmed also in our data (median yield was 103 and 141 Gb for R10 and R9, respectively) Additionally, the genome-wide coverage for ONT samples (∼40X) was generally higher than that of SRS samples (∼35X). However, despite the higher overall genome-wide coverage in ONT, the percentage of base pairs with >10X coverage was unexpectedly lower in ONT samples (<94%) compared to SRS samples (>95%), suggesting that ONT exhibits greater regional variability in coverage.

We also analyzed yield variation across the platforms. In Illumina and ONT R9 we observed the smallest range variation in yield across the 17 samples (93-131Gb and 122-163Gb, respectively). Variation in yield was notably higher for MGI (103-171Gb) and three times higher in ONT R10 (72-198Gb) compared to R9. In Supplemental Table S3, we can also see how read accuracy is still much lower in ONT compared to SRS, as previously reported (Amarasinghe et al., 2020). While we observed close to 90% of SRS sequencing bases with quality scores >Q30, a similar proportion of ONT sequencing bases only achieved >Q10. We could detect the improvement in read accuracy in R10 relative to R9 (median ∼86% and ∼80% bases >Q10, respectively). That improvement is consistent at increasing quality thresholds as well as when comparing average values (Supplemental Figure S3). In addition to increased read accuracy in R10, we also detected larger read lengths in that chemistry compared to R9 (Supplemental Figure S4). Although we found >95% of mapping rate across all platforms, both ONT chemistries remarkably achieved the highest (>99%). Given these very high mapping rates across samples, yield translated into the proportionally expected effective mapping coverage values.

In summary, compared to SRS we found that ONT (R9 and R10 consistently) has (i) lower read accuracy, (ii) more dispersed coverage values and (iii) higher mapping rate; between the two ONT chemistries, R10 seems to have (i) lower yield, (ii) improved read quality and (iii) longer reads.

In terms of the number of variants called per sample, we observed platform-specific differences (see Supplemental Figure S5). Coriell samples sequenced with Illumina generated approximately 5.0M variants per sample, of which around 4.0M were SNVs and 1.0M were INDELs. MGI produced slightly fewer variants, averaging 4.9M per sample, with approximately 4.0M SNVs and 0.9M INDELs. ONT R9 identified around 5.5M variants per sample, of which 4.5M were SNVs and 1.0M were INDELs. Finally, ONT R10 had the highest detection rate, detecting about 5.7M variants per sample, including 4.5M SNVs and 1.2M INDELs. These differences not only reflect the inherent characteristics of each sequencing platform but also highlight the tendency of long-read sequencing technologies to generate a higher rate of false positives, requiring stringent post-variant-calling filtering to ensure result accuracy.

Then, we applied principal component analysis (PCA) to the SNV/INDEL called across all samples for additional QC. PCA is a powerful tool for reducing information across hundreds of thousands of genetic markers into distinct sample similarity patterns. This allowed us to uncover any potential problematic samples or batch effects. In first place, the PCA reflected the ancestries of the 17 Coriell reference samples. The combination of the first two principal components (PC), explain 20.58% of the observed variance. As shown in Supplemental Figure S6a, the single African American sample and the South American family trio (left and bottom data points, respectively) are clearly separated from the remaining Caucasian-descent samples. Note that each individual is represented by 4 data points, corresponding to the sequencing performed across ONT platform (R9 and R10), Illumina and MGI. Closer evaluation further confirmed (Supplemental Figure S6b) that samples from the same individual clustered relatively together. Moreover, PC1 and PC2 also grouped samples from the same family. We observed that PC4 clearly distinguishes between SRS LRS, while the separation between ONT R9 and ONT R10 remains minimal (see Supplemental Figure S7). The effect of the sequencing technology reflected in PC4 accounted for 6.47% of the observed variation. While this shows the platform’s influence on genotype calls, it remains minor and arguably has no impact on the subsequent analyses. Additionally, no outliers were observed in any of the PCs, indicating the absence of problematic samples. Overall, our results confirm the robustness of the dataset, ensuring the reliability of downstream analyses.

Performance of SNV, INDEL and SV detection across the genome

We used the parent-offspring trio (GM24143, GM24149, and GM24385) to assess our SNV/INDEL variant calling performance genome-wide (Supplemental Table S2). We compared the SNV/INDEL call sets generated for each of their ONT (both R9 and R10), Illumina and MGI WGS samples against the publicly available golden-truth variants to calculate standard performance metrics such as recall, precision and F-score (see Methods). We investigated those performance metrics genome-wide as well as in exonic regions and CMRG. In all comparisons, we achieved very homogeneous metrics values across samples within each sequencing technology (as shown by the narrow interquartile ranges in all the boxplots in Figure 1), suggesting high consistency of the reported performance metrics.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. SNV and INDEL calling performance across sequencing platforms.

F-score, precision and recall distribution for SNVs (left) and INDELs (right) across the different sequencing platforms. For Illumina, MGI and ONT (both R9 and R10), displayed are performance metrics in high-confidence regions genome wide. In addition, for ONT R9 and R10 shown are also performance metrics in exonic regions. Each boxplot encapsulates the corresponding metrics for the three Coriell samples with truth sets available (GM24143, GM24149, and GM24385).

In all three sequencing platforms we achieved high performance in calling SNV genome wide, as denoted by F-score >0.975 in any of the samples analyzed (Figure 1, Supplemental Figure S8 and Table 1a). As expected, we observed higher SNV precision (median = 0.997) than recall (median = 0.963) regardless of the sequencing platform. While Illumina exhibited slightly higher SNV precision compared to the other platforms, ONT (both R9 and R10) performed better than SRS in SNV recall, especially compared to MGI. Regardless, these values consistently support our capability to detect SNV in all platforms.

Accurately detecting INDELs is more challenging compared to SNV (i.e. small deletions or insertions 50–100 bp compared to single-point sequence changes). We confirmed that INDEL performance is worse for SNV, with lower precision and worse recall (Figure 1 and Table 1a). We found that drop in the INDEL performance is very pronounced in ONT, with an F-score <0.80, precision <0.85 and recall <0.70 in all samples. In contrast, the same metrics exceeded >0.85 in SRS samples and were consistently higher in Illumina compared to MGI. While ONT performed worse than Illumina and MGI, we observed a substantial improvement in INDELs detection with the newer chemistry compared to the previous R9.

Clinical genomics applications utilize genetic variants with a functional impact. In practice, this typically translates into restricting analyses to coding regions of the genome, namely, the exons. Changes in exons have more impact and interpretable functional change, leading to phenotypic manifestations and, in many cases, clinical symptoms. In contrast, the functional impact of non-coding regions is less clear, causing that less attention is paid to those. Given that, we wondered whether SNV/INDEL variant calling performance using ONT sequencing data is higher in exons compared to the genome-wide results we reported above – this would increase the confidence in utilizing this sequencing technology in clinical applications. We found that the performance of ONT to call INDEL was higher in exons compared to genome wide (Figure 1). The largest improvement was in detecting true INDEL exonic loci, with 5.6% and 5.1% increases in the recall metric in R9 and R10, respectively. R10 also outperformed R9 in exons in terms of INDEL recall. Overall, this improvement in recall is particularly important, as it reduces the proportion of missed true variants or False Negatives (FN), which was more pronounced at the genome-wide level. Restricting our analysis to exons did not alter INDEL precision in R9 but it slightly increased that metric in R10. This means that while ONT may miss some true variants, those that are detected are generally accurate, reflecting a low rate of false positives (FP). On the other side, focusing on exons had little impact in the already high SNV calling performance we reported above (Figure 1). While recall for SNV slightly increased for those located in exons, SNV precision remained consistently high across in R9 and R10.

In the previous analysis we focused on exonic regions as these are more commonly used in clinical genomics applications. For similar reasons, other previous benchmarks have focused on genes that are medically important such as the panel of 73 actionable genes released by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) (Mahmoud et al., 2024; Mandelker et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2021). Others have particularly focused on medically relevant genes that are hard to impossible to characterize by SRS to highlight the potential of LRS to resolve these loci (Mahmoud et al., 2024; Mandelker et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2021). Likewise, here we evaluated the performance of the three sequencing technologies in a previously defined set of 273 CMRG using GM24385, for which truth values in these regions exist. In line with the genome- and exome-wide performance results (Figure 1), ONT (both R9 and R10) performed as well as Illumina and even better than MGI when calling SNV (Supplemental Figure S9). While precision was slightly lower for ONT compared to the two SRS technologies, recall was clearly higher for LRS even compared to Illumina. As previously reported (Mahmoud et al., 2024; Wagner et al., 2022), detecting INDEL within CMRG is particularly challenging for SRS, as denoted by the decrease of 0.07 in precision relative to the genome-wide performance. In contrast, the impact in ONT is lower with only a drop of 0.03 in precision. Again, the improvement, especially in recall, of R10 relative to its predecessor R9 is also noticeable in CMRG.

We also used the well-characterized GM24385 sample to compare SV between LRS and SRS, for which SV truth sets exist. We observed high precision (>0.90) in ONT and Illumina genome-wide (Supplemental Table S4a). On the other side, recall in ONT was more than two times higher than in Illumina (>0.60 and 0.26, respectively), which translated into an aggregated F1 score in ONT almost twice (∼0.75) as high as Illumina’s (0.40). This higher SV performance of ONT was even more pronounced in CMRG (Supplemental Table S4b). Precision for both Illumina and ONT, along with Illumina’s recall, exhibited consistency with genome-wide performance (Supplemental Table S5b). In contrast, ONT’s recall and F1 values boosted close to 0.90. All SV performance metrics were very similar between ONT’s R9 and R10.

Performance detection of disease-causing mutations

We extended the evaluation of the performance of the three sequencing technologies to detect disease-causing mutations in 14 Coriell reference samples. These samples contained 11 mutations (3 SNV, 3 INDEL, 2 CNV and 3 STR) linked to 9 different diseases of high clinical relevance – e.g. breast cancer (BRCA), cystic fibrosis (CF) or DMD (Supplemental Table S2). In each of these samples, we assessed the presence or absence of the associated known mutation, for which genomic coordinates and changes in the genome reference sequence are publicly available.

Both SRS and LRS precisely detected the expected three disease-causing SNV evaluated (Table 1b and Supplemental Table S5). In GM27630, mental retardation autosomal dominant (MRD40) is caused by a de novo c.2127T>G (p.Tyr709*) pathogenic dominant mutation which should therefore be absent in the two parents, also included in our dataset (GM27631 and GM27632). By analyzing the trio samples from each sequencing platform, we confirmed as expected a single copy of the pathogenic variant in the proband and its absence in both parents.

We evaluated three INDELs causing CF (556delA, del508 and 557delT) – delF508 present in three of the Coriell samples and one of them (GM07830) bearing two of the CF-associated mutations (Supplemental Table S2). We confidently detected the three phenotype-causing INDEL in all 4 sequencing technologies/chemistries. Interestingly, our multi-platform high-quality sequencing approach detected a likely 1-bp annotation error in the GM07829 Coriell reference sample. According to the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, the CF phenotype in this sample is caused by a deletion of an adenine (A) relative to the genome reference sequence at the position chr7: 117,531,049 bp (Zielenski et al., 1991). Instead, we detected a deletion of the immediately downstream thymine (T) in all 4 WGS samples for GM07829 (chr7: 117,531,050 bp) (Supplemental Table S5). We ruled out mapping or variant calling artifacts as well as confirmed the T deletion through visual inspection in IGV (Figure 2a–d). Moreover, through Sanger sequencing we confirmed the T deletion at chr7: 117,531,050 bp (Figure 2e) and thus orthogonally validated the genotypes predicted by all HTS technologies. Of note, the INDEL we predict in all our samples has the same functional impact on the CFTR protein which leads to the CF phenotype presented by the individual sourcing GM07829.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Across-platforms HTS and Sanger orthogonal validation uncover a 1-bp annotation error in GM07829.

(a–d) IGV snapshots supporting the absence of the 55delA INDEL (chr7: 117,531,049 bp) annotated in Coriell for GM07829 but instead a 1-bp downstream T deletion (chr7: 117,531,050 bp) with the same detrimental functional effect. (e) Orthogonal validation of the HTS results through Sanger sequencing.

We accurately genotyped the CNV responsible for DMD in GM04099. Both SRS and ONT R9 detected a single copy (i.e., heterozygous) of the deletion of exons 49–52 in the DMD gene. However, in the ONT R10 sample, the Spectre CNV caller in our pipeline failed to identify this pathogenic deletion (Supplemental Table S5). The sequencing read alignment profiles for GM04099 in ONT R10, however, remain consistent with the expected heterozygous genotype. Specifically, the mapping coverage in the flanking regions of the CNV locus aligned with the genome-wide average (∼30X for ONT R10), with approximately half the coverage observed within the deletion region (Supplemental Figure S10), thus ruling out the influence of abnormal coverage on the genotype call. Sniffles2 caller was also evaluated, though its results were less precise. Altogether, we believe these findings point to limitations of ONT-dedicated variant calling algorithms, rather than an issue with the sequencing of this region with ONT.

Furthermore, the deletion of exons 7 and 8 in the SMN1 gene illustrates how ONT is catching up in sequencing accuracy and software developments with SRS. This variant is particularly relevant in the clinical context due to its association with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a severe genetic disorder. SMA is caused in most cases by deletions in the SMN1 gene, but accurately genotyping these deletions is complicated by the presence of the nearly identical paralog SMN2. Illumina developed a dedicated caller to resolve genetic variation in SMN1 and SMN2, enabling accurate screening of pathogenic deletions in SMN1 – this caller is integrated into Illumina’s DRAGEN. We implemented its open-source version (X. Chen et al., 2020) for MGI. Additionally, we introduced an alpha version of an SMN1 and SMN2 caller, named Sillago, specifically developed by ONT (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, 2024). As expected, across all sequencing technologies evaluated, we correctly genotyped the SMA GM10684 sample as homozygous for a deletion of exons 7 and 8 in SMN1, while identifying two normal copies of SMN2 (Supplemental Table S5). Notably, the novel Sillago caller accurately resolves this challenging locus in both R9 and R10.Our evaluation also included tri-nucleotide expansions leading to disease phenotypes (Supplemental Table S2), using specific STR callers in our analysis pipeline. Expansion Hunter (Dolzhenko et al., 2017) was employed for Illumina and MGI, while Straglr (Chiu et al., 2021) was applied for ONT data. In our study, we included a sample affected by dystrophia myotonica (DM), a genetic disorder caused by the expansion of more than 50 CTG repeats in the DMPK gene. Specifically, the GM03990 sample was reported to have between 50 and 80 CTG repeats. In our analysis, we observed 64, 57, 78, and 79 copies using Illumina, MGI, ONT R9, and ONT R10, respectively (see Figure 3). Similarly, Huntington disease (HD) is caused by >36 copies of the CAG tandem repeat in the HTT gene – the GM03620 sample in our study is expected to present 60 copies of such repeat. Illumina detected 55 repeats, MGI identified 68, while ONT R9 and R10 found 78 and 79 copies (see Figure 3). Altogether, for both GM03990 and GM03620, in all sequencing technologies we predicted the STR copy number in the pathogenic range for DM and HD, respectively (Supplemental Table S5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Detection of STR expansions across sequencing platforms for genes FMR1, HTT, and DMPK in the 14 Coriell Samples.

The first panel shows the detection of CTG repeats in the DMPK gene where expansions over 50 repeats are associated with myotonic dystrophy. The intermedium panel displays the detection of CAG repeats in the HTT gene, with expansions beyond 36 repeats, characteristic of Huntington’s disease. And finally, the last panel illustrates the detection of CGG repeats in the FMR1 gene, where expansions exceeding 200 repeats are indicative of Fragile X syndrome.

The third evaluated STR was a CGG expansion in the FMR1 gene which causes FXS when present at >200 copies (Hagerman et al., 2017) (Supplemental Table S2). SRS failed to precisely call the pathogenic form of this STR in the GM09145 included in our study. In Illumina and MGI we detected, respectively, 176 and 111 copies of the CGG-repeat (Figure 3 and Supplemental Table S5), which fall below the >200 value defining the expected disease phenotype. This demonstrates the limitations inherent to SRS platforms in accurately detecting STR, mainly due to average read length and the extensive size of these specific repeat sequences. In contrast, we consistently detected >200 copies of this CGG repeat linked to FXS in the sequencing of GM09145 with ONT R9 or R10 (Figure 3). We noted considerable variation between R9 and R10 chemistries (864 and 573 copies, respectively) (Figure 3).

Because the FXS-linked CGG repeat is relatively long, we hypothesized that it could be detected too by the Sniffles2 (Smolka et al., 2024) SV caller in our ONT pipeline (which is meant to target larger-scale structural variation events). Indeed, we confirmed that Sniffles2 detected the CGG-repeat within the FMR1 gene as an CGG-based insertion relatively matching the length detected by Straglr, with 842 repeats for ONT R9 and 772 for ONT R10 (Figure 3). This approach using different callers for variant detection, highlighted the robustness of LRS in identifying variants confidently.

In summary, we correctly identified the expected genotype in 12 out of the 14 (>85%) Coriell positive control samples across all four sequencing platforms (Illumina, MGI, ONT R9, and ONT R10) (Table 1) – in other words, overall we precisely detected the expected genotype in 53 out of all the 56 (95%) Coriell positive controls across sequencing platforms. Each of the 11 disease-causing mutations we evaluated (Supplemental Table S2) is only expected to be found in the associated Coriell positive control, but not in the others (which can then be treated as true negative controls). Indeed, we verified that this was consistently in all the cases (Supplemental Table S5), which translates into a genotyping accuracy of nearly 100%.

Finally, for ONT only we tested the consistency within (intra) and between (inter) sequencing runs using two of the Coriell positive controls: GM27631 (carrier of c.2127T>G in MRD40) and GM03620 (CAG repeat in HTT). Intra-run tests examine the uniformity and stability of sequencing results within a single batch or run, detecting potential variability that may occur during the sequencing process. Inter-run, on the other hand, extends this quality assessment across multiple sequencing runs, which can occur on different days, involve different reagents or use different machines, ensuring robust reproducibility across different conditions. In the intra-run tests, we sequenced each of the two samples twice within the same run. The c.2127T>G mutation in GM27631 was successfully detected in both intra-run replicates for both R9 and R10. Similarly, the predicted CAG repeat numbers in GM03620 were consistent between the intra-run replicates for R9 (58 and 58 repeats) and R10 (59 and 60 repeats). For the inter-run analysis, we sequenced the same two samples in two separate sequencing runs. The c.2127T>G mutation was detected in all inter-run replicates, and the STR repeat numbers were again consistent across runs (R9: 58 and 58; R10: 59 and 60). Altogether, our results demonstrated satisfactory intra- and inter-run replicability of ONT sequencing.

Across-platforms concordance

In addition to the across-platforms differences relative to reference truth sets, we further explored systematic differences in variant calling between platforms. We noticed that ONT, both R9 and R10, call an excess of SNP/INDEL around the centromeres compared to other parts of the chromosome (Supplemental Figure S11). That is also visible for SRS to less extent and only in certain chromosomes. ONT also shows a higher proportion of variants in the region of chromosome 6 which harbors the human leukocyte antigen (HLA). These observations are likely driven by inaccuracies in the GRCh38 reference genome, particularly in highly repetitive and structurally complex regions, which result in misaligned reads. While SRS platforms typically discard these reads based on stringent mapping quality thresholds, long-read technologies retain a larger proportion of these misaligned reads, potentially contributing to the observed increase in variant calls.

We investigated genotype concordance between sequencing platforms. For SNV and INDEL, we measured concordance as the Jaccard index value calculated from the call sets in any two pair of samples compared (see Supplemental Figure S12) – we calculated the Jaccard index only for pairs of sequencing samples derived from the same Coriell specimen and for SNV and INDEL separately (see Methods). In SNV we detected >78.5% genotype sharing between any platform and chemistry compared (median = 82.4%, max = 92.0%) – we evaluated ∼4 million sites genome wide. The two SRS technologies showed the highest concordance (>90%) followed by the ∼87% similarity between ONT chemistries (Supplemental Figure 12 and Supplemental Table S6). The overall concordance between LRS and SRS was the lowest at ∼80%. Similarity between ONT and Illumina was higher compared to ONT and MGI. Unexpected similarity values between the newer ONT chemistry R10 and SRS was lower compared to R9 and SRS. As expected, similarity patterns in INDELs were lower across all platform comparisons (median = 59.9%, range = 50.8–82.6%). Intra-SRS comparisons still showed the highest similarity (81.2%) but ∼10% lower compared to SNV (90.6%). Any ONT-based comparison fell below 70% similarity, even the R9 versus R10, which for SNV was >86% in any sample. Contrary to the SNV results—where R9 demonstrated better concordance with SRS than R10—the R10-SRS comparison for INDELs exhibited higher similarity (>61.7%) relative to the R9-SRS comparison (∼55.2%). Altogether, these results reinforce that accurate calling of INDEL is more challenging than for SNV, especially for ONT.

Coriell reference samples

Lymphoblast cell cultures were purchased from Coriell Cell Repositories (Camden, NJ) and processed as per the supplier’s instructions. It was chosen to purchase direct cell lines and extract DNA in house rather than the DNA reference material to preserve the native form of DNA. Transportation of DNA may result into fragmentation which may have otherwise affected the long reads required for sequencing on the Oxford Nanopore platform. Upon receipt of cells in T-12.5ml tissue culture flasks, they were incubated overnight at 370C. The following day, cells from the culture flasks were transferred to 50 ml centrifuge tube and centrifuged for 10 mins at 100Xg. The supernatant was discarded and the cell pellet was resuspended with cell culture complete medium (RPMI 1640 with 15% FBS). The cells were then evenly distributed (Approx. 1×10⁶) into 25 ml tissue culture flasks containing 10 ml of media and incubated at 370C with 5% CO2. When adequate growth was seen, the cells were harvested and the number of cells was determined.

DNA extraction

DNA extraction was done using the PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit following the manufacture’s protocol. Briefly the sample tubes were centrifuged at a maximum speed of 15,000 rpm for 5 minutes followed by the removal of growth medium without disturbing the cell pellet. The cells were resuspended in 200 µl of Phosphate buffer saline (PBS) solution and 20 µl each of proteinase K and RNase A were added to the tubes. This was followed by addition of 200 µl PureLink Genomic Lysis/Binding Buffer. The solution was mixed well by vortexing to obtain a homogeneous mixture which was then incubated at 55°C for 10 minutes. 200 µl of 96-100% ethanol was added to the lysate. Approximately, 640 µl of this lysate was transferred to a spin column and centrifuged for a minute. Collection tube with the supernatant was discarded and the spin column was placed into a new collection tube. The column was then washed twice with 500 µl of Wash buffer 1 and Wash buffer2 respectively. Finally, 200 µl of elution buffer was added to the column and centrifuged at maximum speed for 1 minute at room temperature for optimal yields of elute.

Sequencing

Analysis pipeline for each HTS platform

PCA

Beyond the standard QC metrics, PCA emerges as a powerful tool for uncovering underlying patterns and discrepancies in sequencing data. This step presents an additional layer of QC using PCA to assess the consistency across samples sequenced on multiple platforms, including Illumina, MGI, ONT R9, and ONT R10. PCA is a statistical procedure that transforms a set of observations of possibly correlated variables into a set of values of linearly uncorrelated variables called principal components. The transformation is defined in such a way that the first principal component has the largest possible variance, and each following component is structured to capture the maximum variance possible, provided it remains orthogonal to those before it. In this study, PCA was applied as an additional QC measure to assess the consistency of sequencing data across different platforms: Illumina, MGI and ONT (R9 and R10). Seventeen Coriell samples were sequenced on each of these platforms, generating a comprehensive dataset for analysis. After the analysis, the two main components of this PCA were visually summarized in Supplemental Figure S5.

SNV/INDEL variant calling performance evaluation

Evaluating the performance of variant calling tools is crucial in genomics research and clinical diagnostics to ensure the accuracy and reliability of genetic variant identification across the whole genome. This evaluation process involves comparing the variants identified by our variant caller (which are known as test variants) against a known set of variants (reference or “golden truth”) for a given set of samples. The metrics commonly used for this assessment are recall, precision, and F-score.

Pairwise genotype concordance between platforms

We measured genotype concordance between sequencing platforms using the Jaccard index, a statistical measure for comparing the similarity and diversity of sample sets. The Jaccard index was calculated from the variant call sets in pairs of sequencing samples from the same Coriell specimen. This provided a quantitative measure of the proportion of shared variants relative to the total number of unique variants, thereby reflecting the similarity and concordance of the variant call sets across platforms.

To ensure high-confidence data, variants that passed all quality control filters from the VCF were first retained. These filtered variants were then categorized into single nucleotide variants SNVs and INDELs to facilitate independent analysis of each type. The Jaccard index was subsequently computed for the specified pair-sets using BEDTools.