An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes

Christopher D. Herring*, Bernhard Palsson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

31 Citations (Scopus)


Background: With the development of new technology, it has recently become practical to resequence the genome of a bacterium after experimental manipulation. It is critical though to know the accuracy of the technique used, and to establish confidence that all of the mutations were detected. Results: In order to evaluate the accuracy of genome resequencing using the microarray-based Comparative Genome Sequencing service provided by Nimblegen Systems Inc., we resequenced the E. coli strain W3110 Kohara using MG1655 as a reference, both of which have been completely sequenced using traditional sequencing methods. CGS detected 7 of 8 small sequence differences, one large deletion, and 9 of 12 IS element insertions present in W3110, but did not detect a large chromosomal inversion. In addition, we confirmed that CGS also detected 2 SNPs, one deletion and 7 IS element insertions that are not present in the genome sequence, which we attribute to changes that occurred after the creation of the W3110 lambda clone library. The false positive rate for SNPs was one per 244 Kb of genome sequence. Conclusion: CGS is an effective way to detect multiple mutations present in one bacterium relative to another, and while highly cost-effective, is prone to certain errors. Mutations occurring in repeated sequences or in sequences with a high degree of secondary structure may go undetected. It is also critical to follow up on regions of interest in which SNPs were not called because they often indicate deletions or IS element insertions.

Original languageEnglish
Article number274
JournalBMC Genomics
Publication statusPublished - 14 Aug 2007


Dive into the research topics of 'An evaluation of Comparative Genome Sequencing (CGS) by comparing two previously-sequenced bacterial genomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this