. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Sep 3.

Published in final edited form as: Electrophoresis. 2006 Aug;27(15):3042–3047. doi: 10.1002/elps.200500834

Table 1.

Concordance of Pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing: results of Pyrosequencing and Sanger dideoxy sequencing on the set of 4747 yeast deletion tags, as well as the expected putative sequences

Category	Result	No. of sequences	%	Cumulative totals
1	Pyro = Sanger = putative	3044	64.12	85.00%
2	(Pyro = Sanger) ≠ putative	793	16.71
3	Pyro = putative and Sanger ≠ putative (q ≤15)	198	4.17
4	Pyro ≠ (Sanger = Putative)	226	4.76	5.96%^a)
5	Pyro = putative and Sanger ≠ putative (q >15)	57	1.20
6	Pyro ambiguous and Sanger definitive	253	5.33	5.33%^a)
7	Pyro ≠ Sanger ≠ putative	176	3.71	3.71%^a)^b)
	Total	4747	100	100%

^a)

Pyrosequencing improvable with SSB, sequenase, and better base calling software.

^b)

Not easily interpretable with respect to accuracy.