Skip to main content
. 2019 Jul 17;9:10383. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46875-5

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Comparison of quality metric across library preparation methods. (a) Raw reads with sequencing quality > Q20 or >Q30. (b) Bases trimmed due to low quality (<Q20). (c) Library insert size (bp). (d) Bases containing adaptor sequences. (e) Overlapping bases between Read 1 and Read 2. (f) Read duplicates (read-pairs). Read duplicates were defined as two read-pairs with the same start and end positions. All libraries were sequenced on the HiSeq X platform. n.s.: not statistically significant, P > 0.05, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001. Bars show average values, with error bars representing standard error of mean.