Table 1.
Comparison of characteristics of Next Generation Sequencing versus traditional Sanger sequencing, considering same budget/effort.
| NGS | Sanger | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Cost per millions base | 0.07 – 10 $ <<< 2400 $ | |
|
| ||
| Read length | 35 – 900 bp < = 400–900 bp | |
|
| ||
| Accuracy | 98 – 99.9% < 99.999% | |
|
| ||
| Amount of template needed / sequence | NGS < << Sanger | |
|
| ||
| Multiplexing of samples (individuals/treatment) (or simultanuous analysis of multiple samples) | NGS >>> Sanger | |
|
| ||
| Reconstruction of full length contig | NGS < = Sanger* | |
|
| ||
| Genome / Transcriptome assembly | NGS >>> Sanger | |
| Recovery of rare sequences | NGS >> Sanger | |
| Sampling of unknown sequences | NGS > Sanger | |
| Representation of members of genefamilies | NGS >> Sanger | |
| Sampling of variant sequences | |“complete”** versus randomly selective | |
| Recovery of symbiont/pathogen sequences | NGS > Sanger | |
| Recovery of methylated sequences** | NGS > Sanger | |
| Protein- nucleic acid inetractions** | NGS > Sanger | |
|
| ||
| Information on expression level | NGS > Sanger | |
|
| ||
| miRNA profiling | NGS >>> Sanger | |
|
| ||
| Comprehensive sequence comparison among species | NGS >> Sanger | |
*
read-lengths for NGS approaching high throughput Sanger sequencing [BASED ON (EST average= ~400bp Sanger, close to 454)]
**
“complete” within confines of sequencing bias by different techniques.
***
using appropriately prepared template