. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Nov 1.

Published in final edited form as: Trends Genet. 2014 Aug 30;30(11):504–512. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.07.008

Table 1.

Technologies for assessing STR variation by high-throughput sequencing.

Name	Data Source	Analysis strategy	Accepted coverage^a	Reported accuracy	Reported efficiency	Limitations	Ref.
lobSTR	Human, whole-genome^b,^c	Align to modified reference	1 read	88%–95%	0.2% of reads are informative	Depends on depth of sequencing and length of reads	[38]
RepeatSeq	Human, whole-genome^b,^d	Align to reference, locally realigned	2 reads	92%	Not reported	Depends on depth of sequencing and length of reads	[37]
STRViper	A. thaliana whole-genome^b,^d	Compare insert size to reference	10 reads	74%	Not reported	Cannot call STR unit number genotypes	[39]
Array Capture	Human, array capture^b	RepeatSeq	2 reads	88%–92%	2.2% informative reads	Low enrichment for STR-spanning reads	[35]
SureSelect RNA probe capture	Human, target enrichment, Roche 454	Locally align flanking regions	4 reads	88%–95%	27% informative reads	Expensive probe design, captured only 60% of targeted STRs	[36]

^a:

Minimum coverage of a single STR that is considered sufficient to call a genotype.

^b:

Sequence data from Illumina HiSeq technology.

^c:

data references: [93,94]

^d:

data references: [95,96]

^e:

data references: [97,98]