Clinical sequencing: is WGS the better WES?

294Citations
Citations of this article
664Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Current clinical next-generation sequencing is done by using gene panels and exome analysis, both of which involve selective capturing of target regions. However, capturing has limitations in sufficiently covering coding exons, especially GC-rich regions. We compared whole exome sequencing (WES) with the most recent PCR-free whole genome sequencing (WGS), showing that only the latter is able to provide hitherto unprecedented complete coverage of the coding region of the genome. Thus, from a clinical/technical point of view, WGS is the better WES so that capturing is no longer necessary for the most comprehensive genomic testing of Mendelian disorders.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Meienberg, J., Bruggmann, R., Oexle, K., & Matyas, G. (2016). Clinical sequencing: is WGS the better WES? Human Genetics, 135(3), 359–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-015-1631-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free