Intech NGS Imp PDF

We are IntechOpen,
the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists
4,500
Open access books available
119,000
International authors and editors
135M
Downloads
Our authors are among the
154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities
Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)
Interested in publishing with us?

Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter 1
Next-Generation Sequencing — An Overview of the

History, Tools, and “Omic” Applications
Jerzy K. Kulski
Additional information is available at the end of the chapter
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
Abstract
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies using DNA, RNA, or methylation se‐
quencing have impacted enormously on the life sciences. NGS is the choice for large-scale
genomic and transcriptomic sequencing because of the high-throughput production and
outputs of sequencing data in the gigabase range per instrument run and the lower cost
compared to the traditional Sanger first-generation sequencing method. The vast
amounts of data generated by NGS have broadened our understanding of structural and
functional genomics through the concepts of “omics” ranging from basic genomics to in‐
tegrated systeomics, providing new insight into the workings and meaning of genetic
conservation and diversity of living things. NGS today is more than ever about how dif‐
ferent organisms use genetic information and molecular biology to survive and repro‐
duce with and without mutations, disease, and diversity within their population
networks and changing environments. In this chapter, the advances, applications, and
challenges of NGS are reviewed starting with a history of first-generation sequencing fol‐
lowed by the major NGS platforms, the bioinformatics issues confronting NGS data stor‐
age and analysis, and the impacts made in the fields of genetics, biology, agriculture, and
medicine in the brave, new world of ”omics.”
Keywords: Next-generation sequencing, tools, platforms, applications, omics
1. Introduction
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) refers to the deep, high-throughput, in-parallel DNA

sequencing technologies developed a few decades after the Sanger DNA sequencing method
first emerged in 1977 and then dominated for three decades [1, 2]. The NGS technologies are
different from the Sanger method in that they provide massively parallel analysis, extremely
high-throughput from multiple samples at much reduced cost [3]. Millions to billions of DNA
© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
4 Next Generation Sequencing - Advances, Applications and Challenges
nucleotides can be sequenced in parallel, yielding substantially more throughput and mini‐
mizing the need for the fragment-cloning methods that were used with Sanger sequencing [4].
The second-generation sequencing methods are characterized by the need to prepare amplified
sequencing libraries before undertaking sequencing of the amplified DNA clones, whereas
third-generation single molecular sequencing can be done without the need for creating the
time-consuming and costly amplification libraries [5]. The parallelization of a high number of
sequencing reactions by NGS was achieved by the miniaturization of sequencing reactions
and, in some cases, the development of microfluidics and improved detection systems [6]. The
time needed to generate the gigabase (Gb)-sized sequences by NGS was reduced from many
years to only a few days or hours, with an accompanying massive price reduction. For example,
as part of the Human Genome Project, the J. C. Venter genome [7] took almost 15 years to
sequence at a cost of more than 1 million dollars using the Sanger method, whereas the J. D.
Watson (1962 Nobel Prize winner) genome was sequenced by NGS using the 454 Genome
Sequencer FLX with about the same 7.5x coverage within 2 months and for approximately
100th of the price [8]. The cost of sequencing the bacterial genome is now possible at about
$1000 (https://www.nanoporetech.com), and the large-scale whole-genome sequencing (WGS)
of 2,636 Icelanders [9] has brought some of the aims of the 1000 Genomes Project [10] to abrupt
fruition.
Rapid progress in NGS technology and the simultaneous development of bioinformatics tools
has allowed both small and large research groups to generate de novo draft genome sequences
for any organism of interest. Apart from using NGS for WGS [11], these technologies can be
used for whole transcriptome shotgun sequencing (WTSS) — also called RNA sequencing
(RNA-seq) [12], whole-exome sequencing (WES) [13], targeted (TS) or candidate gene se‐
quencing (CGS) [14–16], and methylation sequencing (MeS) [17]. RNA-seq can be used to
identify all transcriptional activities (coding and noncoding) or a select subset of targeted RNA
transcripts within a given sample [12], and it provides a more precise and sensitive measure‐
ment of gene expression levels than microarrays in the analysis of many samples [18–21]. In
contrast to WGS, WES provides coverage for more than 95% of human exons to investigate
the protein-coding regions (CDS) of the genome and identify coding variants or SNPs when
WGS and WTSS are not practical or necessary [13]. Since the exome represents less than 2% of
the human genome, it is the cost-effective alternative to WGS and RNA-seq in the study of
human genetics and disease [13]. However, WGS may be preferred over WES because it
provides more data with better uniformity of read coverage on disease-associated variants and
reveals polymorphisms outside coding regions and genomic rearrangements [19, 22]. The
analysis of the methylome by MeS complements WGS, WES, and CGS to determine the active
methylation sites and the epigenetic markers that regulate gene expression, epistructural base
variations, imprinting, development, differentiation, disease, and the epigenetic state [23–30].
The impact of NGS technology is indeed egalitarian in that it allows both small and large
research groups the possibility to provide answers and solutions to many different problems
and questions in the fields of genetics and biology, including those in medicine, agriculture,
forensic science, virology, microbiology, and marine and plant biology.
Next-Generation Sequencing — An Overview of the History, Tools, and “Omic” Applications 5
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the advances, applications, and challenges
of NGS, starting with a history of first-generation sequencing followed by the major NGS
platforms, the bioinformatics issues confronting NGS data storage and analysis, and the
applications and challenges for biology and medicine in the world of “omic” expansion.
2. First-generation sequencing: A brief history
Twelve years after the publication of the Watson and Crick double-helix DNA structure in
1953 [31], the first natural polynucleotide sequence was reported [32]. It was the 77-nt yeast
alanine tRNA with a proposed cloverleaf structure, although the anticodon, the three
nucleotides that bind to the mRNA sequence, was not yet identified in the sequence [32].
It took 7 years to prepare up to 1 g of the tRNA from commercial baker’s yeast by
countercurrent distribution before fragmenting the RNA into short oligonucleotides with
various RNase enzymes to reconstruct and identify the nucleotide residues using two-
dimensional chromatography and spectrophotometric procedures [33]. At that time,
scientists could sequence only a few base pairs per year, not nearly enough to sequence an
entire gene. Nevertheless, despite the time-consuming and laborious nature of these very
first sequencing methods that were developed for tRNA and other oligonucleotides, there
was a flurry of RNA and DNA sequencing for the next 10 years that improved the
sequencing procedures of fragmented DNA and provided new information on the sequences
of more than 100 different tRNA. These initial labor-intensive sequencing efforts resulted
also in the first complete genome sequence — the 3,569-nucleotide-long bacteriophage MS2
RNA, the lysozyme gene sequence of bacteriophage T4 DNA, and the 24-bp lac operator
sequence [33–36]. This eventually led to the Maxam and Gilbert chemical degradation DNA
sequencing method that chemically cleaved specific bases of terminally labeled DNA
fragments and separated them by electrophoresis [37]. New data on how to sequence
bacteriophage DNA by specific primer extension methods resulted in Sanger et al. [1] using
primer-extension and chain-termination methods for sequencing polynucleotides longer
than oligonucleotide lengths. Subsequently, the new Sanger DNA chain-termination
sequencing method [1], known simply as the Sanger sequencing method, prevailed over
the Maxam and Gilbert chemical degradation method [37] because of its greater simplici‐
ty and reliability and the use of fewer toxic chemicals and lower amounts of radioactivi‐
ty. The first-generation automated DNA sequencers developed by Applied Biosystem
Instruments (ABI) used the Sanger method with fluorescent dye-terminator reagents for
single-reaction sequencing rather than the usual four separate reactions [34–36]. These
sequencers were later improved by including computers to collect, store, and analyze the
sequencing data [38]. The invention of the PCR technology [39] and thermal cyclers and
the use of a heat-resistant enzyme such as Taq polymerase from Thermus aquaticus between
1985 and 1990 enabled the generation of random or specific sequences for de novo sequenc‐
ing, filling gaps, and resequencing particular regions of interest [35]. The discovery of
reverse transcriptase in 1970 [40, 41] led to the development of RNA sequencing using
cDNA reverse transcribed from RNA. In 1991, Adams et al. [42] initiated a systematic cDNA
sequencing project using the Sanger method and the 373A DNA semiautomated sequenc‐
ers to generate large batches of cDNA sequences with an average length of 397 bases, which
they named ”expressed sequence tags” (ESTs) and used as substrates and markers for RNA
contig and transcriptome mapping. These improvements, together with the establishment
of GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank) in 1982, resulted in the generation of
hundreds of thousands of more DNA sequences throughout the 1980s, 1990s [34–36], and
right up to the beginning of the new millennium, with the publication of the first draft
sequence of the human genome [43, 44].
A sudden increase in the number of DNA and RNA sequences generated for GenBank
between 1992 and 2004 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/statistics) resulted mostly
from three main initiatives: the development of automated sequencers and the emergence
of service providers, the industrialization and the establishment of sequencing centers and
international consortiums, and the continued development of computing hardware and
software to store and analyze nucleotide sequences. The automated-industrialized ap‐
proach based on random or shotgun sequencing was initiated by The Institute for Genom‐
ic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Maryland, and resulted in the publication of 337 new
human genes and 48 homologous genes from other organisms [42]. By 1999, the TIGR
venture generated 83 million nucleotides of cDNA sequence, 87,000 human cDNA sequen‐
ces, and the complete genome sequences of two bacterial species, Haemophilus influenzae
[45] and Mycoplasma genitalium [46]. This success was in part due to the development of
the TIGR sequence assembler, an innovative computer program to assemble vast amounts
of EST data [47]. By the end of 2001, the automated sequencers, such as the fully automat‐
ed Prism 3700 with 96 capillaries that could produce 1.6×105 bases of sequence data per
day, sequencing centers and international consortiums, such as the TIGR in the USA, the
Sanger Centre in the United Kingdom, and RIKEN in Japan, produced the complete genomic
sequences of the bacteria E. coli and Bacillus subtilis, the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the
nematode C. elegans, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, the plant Arabidopsis thialiana, and
the human genome (see references cited by Stein [48]). Although sequencing was still hugely
expensive and time consuming, Sanger sequencing was by then the dominant method.
Pundits now placed DNA sequencing into a postgenomic era and predicted functional
genomics, SNPs, and transcript arrays as the future of biological investigation [49, 50].
Indeed, after the establishment of the first Affymetrix and GeneChip microarrays in 1996,
the decade saw a rapid growth in DNA array technology and applications for various gene
expression studies in prokaryotes and eukaryotes [21, 51, 52]. Nevertheless, the outputs for
genomic and/or RNA sequencing had neither finished nor slowed; new sequencing methods
continued to emerge after 2005 to challenge the cost and supremacy of the Sanger di‐
deoxy method [34–36]. These new methods became known as next-generation sequencing
because they were designed to employ massively parallel strategies to produce large
amounts of sequence from multiple samples at very high-throughput and at a high degree
of sequence coverage to allow for the loss of accuracy of individual reads when com‐
pared to Sanger sequencing. These different approaches brought the cost of sequencing the
genome down from $100 million in 2001 to less than $10,000 in 2014 [53].
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
3. Second-generation sequencing
A more detailed history of the development of the first- and next-generation sequencing
platforms has been presented in a number of previous reviews [2–6, 11, 34–36, 54]. Table 1
outlines the basic features and performances of the common next-generation sequencing
platforms. The basic characteristics of second-generation sequencing technology are the
following. Shotgun sequencing of random fragmented genomic (fg) DNA or cDNA reverse
transcribed from RNA is performed without the need for cloning via a foreign host cell: instead,
linker and/or adapter sequences are ligated to the fgDNA or cDNA for construction of template
libraries. Library amplification is performed on a solid surface or on beads while isolated
within miniature emulsion droplets or arrays. Nucleotide incorporation is monitored directly
by luminescence detection or by changes in electrical charge during the sequencing procedure.
NGS generates many millions of nucleotide short reads in parallel in a much shorter time than
by the Sanger sequencing method. The read types generated by NGS are digital and therefore
enable direct quantitative comparisons. Either single or pair end reads can be obtained at
fragment ends.
3.1. DNA and RNA library preparations for second-generation sequencing

The general workflow for second-generation sequencing is the preparation and amplification
of libraries prepared from DNA or RNA samples, clonal formation, sequencing, and analysis
[55–59]. Head et al. [55] have reviewed the methods and problems encountered for preparing
NGS libraries for whole-genome sequencing, exome sequencing, target sequencing, RNA-seq,
ChIP-seq, RIP-seq, and methylation sequencing (methyl-seq). Prior to library preparation, the
genomic DNA is fragmented by acoustic shearing, sonication, or enzymatic digestion with
DNase I or fragmentase and then labeled with adapters, tags, barcodes, and primers using
established ligation and PCR methods. Alternatively, Illumina’s fragmentation technology,
called Nextera Tagmentation, can be implemented using a transposase enzyme to simultane‐
ously fragment and insert adapter sequences into the ds DNA and thereby reduce sample
handling and preparation time [57]. For targeted sequencing, the exomes or regions of interest
within the fragmented DNA can be captured and enriched by probe-hybridization-capture
kits or by PCR amplification with custom-designed primers. For RNA-seq of mRNA, polyA-
RNA is isolated usually from total RNA or rRNA-depleted RNA and reverse transcribed to
cDNA with reverse transcriptase and polyT or polyU primers before being treated much the
same way as the fragmented genomic DNA. RNA sequencing libraries also can be created
from immunoprecipitated RNA-binding proteins. To isolate noncoding RNAs (micro, small,
and long) from total RNA, these sequences are selectively ligated to 3′ and 5′ adapters and
reverse transcribed to cDNA. For methylation sequencing, the genomic DNA is reacted usually
with bisulfite chemicals prior to library construction. On the other hand, ChIP-seq and RIP-
seq use antibody capture to enrich the relevant sequences before preparation of the genomic
DNA fragments for sequencing. In comparison to high-input gDNA libraries, the RNA and
ChIP libraries may be limited by low cell numbers as starting material and consequently result
in a low input of extracted DNA from the immunoprecipitated histones or DNA-binding
proteins and in a limited sequence coverage.
Numerous DNA and RNA library kits and machines are available for the semiautomated or
fully automated preparation of DNA libraries both for second- and/or third-generation
sequencing. Some of these are GemCode from x10 (http://10xgenomics.com) and Raindrop’s
Thunderstorm (http://raindancetech.com) for all sequencing platforms, cBot for the Illumina
platform [58], and Ion Chef and Ion OneTouch for the Ion Torrent platform [59]. All of these
kits and auxiliary machines attempt to reduce workload and costs for the main platform
sequencers. The DNA libraries are labeled with barcode sample tags, such as the multiplex
identifier (MID) for Roche/454 sequencing, to enable the libraries to be pooled and therefore
maximize the sequence output as a multiplex amplicon sequencing step for each sequencing
run. After library construction, the DNA fragments are clonally amplified by emulsion PCR
with microbeads [4, 6, 60] or by solid-phase PCR using primers attached to a solid surface [4,
61, 62] in order to generate sufficient single-stranded DNA molecules and detectable signal
for producing sufficiently reliable sequencing data [54]. Roche 454, Life Technologies’ SOLiD,
and Ion Torrent platforms use emulsion PCR, whereas Illumina’s HiSeq/MiSeq platforms use
solid-phase PCR [4]. More recently, isothermal PCR amplification on a solid surface of a flow
cell [62] was developed for the SOLiD 5500 W series of sequencing machines.
A problem with preparing sequencing libraries by PCR amplification is that PCR introduces
GC bias, a major source of unwanted variation and errors in the sequencing coverage [63].
Using alternative methods to PCR amplification improves library complexity and the coverage
of high GC regions and reduces the number of duplicate reads [64]. A number of different
PCR-free library preparation kits are available commercially, such as NEXTflex PCR-Free from
Bioo Scientific, Accel NGS 2S PCR-free library kit from Swift Biosciences, and the Illumina
TruSeq DNA PCR-Free Sample Preparation Kit that uses ligation amplification for Illumina
and other sequencing platform systems.
3.2. NGS platforms
The main features and performances of five commonly used second-generation sequencing
technologies that have been reviewed in detail by others [2–4, 11, 36, 54] are shown in Table 1.
NGS platforms/company/max Read No. reads Time (h or Cost Raw Platform Chemistry
output per run length per per run days) per 10 6
error cost (USD
run (bp) bases rate (%) approx.)
First generation
Sanger/Life Technologies/84 kb 800 1 2h 2400 0.3 95,000 Dideoxy terminator
Second generation
454 GS FLX+/Roche/0.7 Gb 700 1×106 24/48 h 10 1 500,000 Pyrosequencing
GS Junior/Roche/70 Mb 500 1×105 18 h 9 100,000 Pyrosequencing
HiSeq/Illumina/1500 Gb 2x150 5×109 27/240 h 0.1 0.8 750,000 Reversible terminators
MiSeq/Illumina/15 Gb 2x300 3×108
27 h 0.13 0.8 125,000 Reversible terminators
SOLiD/Life Technologies/120 Gb 50 1×109
14 days 0.13 0.01 350,000 Ligation
Retrovolocity/BGI/3000 Gb 50 1×109
14 days 0.01 0.01 12×106
Nanoball/ligation
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
NGS platforms/company/max Read No. reads Time (h or Cost Raw Platform Chemistry
output per run length per per run days) per 106 error cost (USD
run (bp) bases rate (%) approx.)
Ion Proton/Life Technologies/100 200 6×107
2–5 h 1 1.7 215,000 Proton detection
Gb
Ion PGM/Life Technologies/2 Gb 200 5×106 2–5 h 1 1.7 80,000 Proton detection
Third generation
SMRT/Pac Bio/1 Gb >10,000 1×106 1–2 h 2 12.9 750,000 Real-time SMS
Heliscope/Helicos/25 Gb 35 7×109
8 days 0.01 0.2 1.35×10 6
Real-time SMS
Nanopore/Oxford Nanopore >5000 6×10 4
48/72 h <1 34 1000 Real-time SMS
Technologies/1 Gb
Electron microscopy/ZS 7200 14 h <0.01 1×106 Real-time SMS
Genia nanopore (http:// Real-time SMS
www.geniachip.com)
Table 1. Basic features and performances of NGS platforms. Sources are [4, 11, 20, 54, 115]. For comparison of the NGS
outputs, the human genome has 3×109 bp or 3 Gb.
3.2.1. Roche 454 pyrosequencing

Roche 454 pyrosequencing by synthesis (SBS) was the first commercially successful second-
generation sequencing system developed by 454 Life Sciences in 2005 and acquired by Roche
in 2007 (http://www.my454.com). This technology uses sequencing chemistry, whereby visible
light is detected and measured after it is produced by an ATP sulfurylase, luciferase, DNA
polymerase enzymatic system in proportion to the amount of pyrophosphate that is released
during repeated nucleotide incorporation into the newly synthesized DNA chain [2, 4, 6]. The
system was miniaturized and massively parallelized using PicoTiterPlates to produce more
than 200,000 reads at 100 to 150 bp per read with an output of 20 Mb per run in 2005 [6]. The
upgraded 454 GS FLX Titanium system released by Roche in 2008 improved the average read
length to 700 bp with an accuracy of 99.997% and an output of 0.7 Gb of data per run within
24 h. The GS Junior bench-top sequencer produced a read length of 700 bp with 70 Mb
throughput and runtime of 10 to 18 h. The major drawbacks of this technology are the high
cost of reagents and high error rates in homopolymer repeats. The estimated cost per million
bases is $10 by Roche 454 compared to $0.07 by Illumina HiSeq 2000 [54]. A more serious
challenge for those using this technology is the announcement by Roche that they will no
longer supply or service the 454 sequencing machines or the pyrosequencing reagents and
chemicals after 2016 [65].
3.2.2. Illumina (Solexa) HiSeq and MiSeq sequencing

Illumina (http://www.illumina.com) purchased the Solexa Genome Analyzer in 2006 and
commercialized it in 2007 [66, 67]. Today, it is the most successful sequencing system with a
claimed >70% dominance of the market, particularly with the HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. The
Illumina sequencer is different from the Roche 454 sequencer in that it adopted the technology
of sequencing by synthesis using removable fluorescently labeled chain-terminating nucleo‐
tides that are able to produce a larger output at lower reagent cost [4, 6, 66]. The clonally
enriched template DNA for sequencing is generated by PCR bridge amplification (also known
as cluster generation) into miniaturized colonies called polonies [66]. The output of sequencing
data per run is higher (600 Gb), the read lengths are shorter (approximately 100 bp), the cost
is cheaper, and the run times are much longer (3-10 days) than most other systems [54]. Illumina
provides six industrial-level sequencing machines (NextSeq 500, HiSeq series 2500, 3000, and
4000, and HiSeq X series five and ten) with mid to high output (120–1500 Gb) as well as a
compact laboratory sequencer called the MiSeq, which, although small in size, has an output
of 0.3 to 15 Gb and fast turnover rates suitable for targeted sequencing for clinical and small
laboratory applications [68]. The MiSeq uses the same sequencing and polony technology such
as the high-end machines, but it can provide sequencing results in 1 to 2 days at much reduced
cost [54]. Illumina’s new method of synthetic long reads using TruSeq technology apparently
improves de novo assembly and resolves complex, highly repetitive transposable elements [69].
3.2.3. Sequencing by Oligonucleotide Ligation and Detection (SOLiD)
Supported Oligonucleotide Ligation and Detection (SOLiD) is a next-generation sequencer

instrument marketed by Life Technologies (http://www.lifetechnologies.com) and first
released in 2008 by Applied Biosystems Instruments (ABI). It is based on 2-nucleotide
sequencing by ligation (SBL) [4, 6, 66]. This procedure involves sequential annealing of probes
to the template and their subsequent ligation. Sequencers on the market today, such as the
5500 W series, are suitable for small- and large-scale projects involving whole genomes,
exomes, and transcriptomes. Previously, sample preparation and amplification was similar to
that of Roche 454 sequencing [66]. However, the upgrades to Wildfire chemistry have enabled
greater throughput and simpler workflows by replacing beads with direct in situ amplification
on FlowChips and paired-end sequencing [62]. The SOLiD 5500 W series sequencing reactions
still use fluorescently labeled octamer probes in repeated cycles of annealing and ligation that
are interrogated and eventually deciphered in a complex subtractive process using Exact Call
Chemistry that has been well described by others [2, 36, 66]. The advantage of this method is
accuracy with each base interrogated twice. The major disadvantages are the short read lengths
(50–75 bp), the very long run times of 7 to 14 days, and the need for state-of-the-art computa‐
tional infrastructure and expert computing personnel for analysis of the raw data.
3.2.4. DNA nanoball sequencing by BGI Retrovolocity
Complete Genomics (http://www.completegenomics.com) developed DNA nanoball sequenc‐

ing (DNBS) as a hybrid of sequencing by hybridization and ligation [70]. Small fragments (440–
500 bp) of genomic DNA or cDNA are amplified into DNA nanoballs by rolling-circle
replication that requires the construction of complete circular templates before the generation
of nanoballs. The DNA nanoballs are deposited onto an arrayed flow cell, with one nanoball
per well sequenced at high density. Up to 10 bases of the template are read in 5′ and 3′ direction
from each adapter. Since only short sequences, adjacent to adapters, are read, this sequencing
format resembles a multiplexed form of mate-pair sequencing similar to using Exact Call
Chemistry in SOLiD sequencing [2, 36, 66]. Ligated sequencing probes are removed, and a new
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
pool of probes is added, specific for different interrogated positions. The cycle of annealing,
ligation, washing, and image recording is repeated for all 10 positions adjacent to one terminus
of one adapter. This process is repeated for all seven remaining adapter termini. Although the
developers have sequenced the whole human genome, the major disadvantage of DNBS is the
short length of reads and the length of time for the sequencing projects. Claimed cost of the
reagents for sequencing of the whole human genome is under $5000. The major advantage of
this approach is the high density of arrays and therefore the high number of DNBs (~350
million) that can be sequenced. In 2015, the Chinese genomics service company BGI-Shenzhen
acquired Complete Genomics and introduced the Retrovolocity system for large-scale, high-
quality whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing with 50x coverage per genome and with
the sample to assembled genome produced in less than 8 days [71]. Complete Genomics claims
to have sequenced more than 20,000 whole human genomes over 5 years and published widely
on the use of their NGS platform. They provide public access to a human repository of 69
genomes data and a cancer data set of two matched tumor and normal sample pairs at http://
www.completegenomics.com/public-data/.
3.2.5. Ion torrent
Ion Torrent technology (http://www.iontorrent.com) was developed by the inventors of 454

sequencing [60], introducing two major changes. Firstly, the nucleotide sequences are detected
electronically by changes in the pH of the surrounding solution proportional to the number of
incorporated nucleotides rather than by the generation of light and detection using optical
components. Secondly, the sequencing reaction is performed within a microchip that is
amalgamated with flow cells and electronic sensors at the bottom of each cell. The incorporated
nucleotide is converted to an electronic signal detected by the electronic sensors. The two
sequencers in the market that use Ion Torrent technology are the high-throughput Proton
sequencer with more than 165 million sensors and the Ion Personal Genome Machine (PGM),
a bench-top sequencer with 11.1 million sensors. There are four sequencing chips to choose
from [72]. The Ion PI Chip is used with the Proton sequencer, and the Ion 314, 316, or 318 Chips
are used with the Ion PGM. The Ion 314 Chip provides the lowest reads at 0.5 million reads
per chip, whereas the Ion 318 Chip provides the highest reads of up to 5.5 million reads per
chip. The Proton sequencer provides a higher throughput (10–100 Gb vs. 20 Mb–1 Gb) and
more reads per run (660 Mb vs. 11 Mb) than the PGM chips, but the read lengths (200–500 bp),
run time (4–5 h), and accuracy (99%) are similar [54, 72]. Sample preparation for the generation
of DNA libraries is similar to the one used for Roche 454 sequencing but can be simplified with
the use of the Ion Chef system for automated template preparation and chip loading. The Ion
Torrent chip is used with an ion-sensitive field-effect transistor sensor that has been engineered
to detect individual protons produced during the sequencing reaction. The chip is placed
within the flow cell and is sequentially flushed with individual unlabeled dNTPs in the
presence of the DNA polymerase. Incorporation of nucleotide into the DNA chain releases H
protons and changes the pH of the surrounding solution that is proportional to the number of
incorporated nucleotides. The major disadvantages of the system are problems in reading
homopolymer stretches and repeats. The major advantages seem to be the relatively longer
read lengths, flexible workflow, reduced turnaround time, and a cheaper price than those
provided by the other platforms [54, 73].
4. Third-generation sequencing: Emerging technologies for single-

molecule sequencing
Third-generation single-molecule sequencing technologies have emerged to reduce the price

of sequencing and to simplify the preparatory procedures and sequencing methods [4, 74, 75].
4.1. Single-molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing by pacific biosciences
Pacific Biosciences (http://www.pacificbiosciences.com) markets the PacBio RS II sequencer

and the SMRT real-time sequencing system [74, 75]. SMRT sequencing is performed in SMRT
cells that contain 150,000 ultra-microwells at a zeptoliter scale where one molecule of DNA
polymerase is immobilized at the bottom of each well using the biotin-streptavidin system in
nanostructures known as zero-mode waveguides (ZMWs). Once the template single-strand
DNA is coupled with immobilized DNA polymerase, fluorescently labeled dNTP analogs are
added and detected when the nucleotide is incorporated into the growing strand. CCD
cameras continuously monitor the 150,000 ZMWs as a series of observed pulses that are
converted into single molecular traces representing the template sequences. Since all four
nucleotides are added simultaneously and measured in real time, the speed of sequencing is
much increased compared to technologies where individual nucleotides are flushed sequen‐
tially. Although the reported accuracy was 99.3% initially with read lengths of about 900 bp
[4], circularizing the template and sequencing it several times using a technology called
SMRTbell templates provided longer reads and improved the accuracy to >99.999% [76, 77].
Once sequencing is initiated, the system’s computational Blade Center performs real-time
signal processing, base calling, and quality assessment. Primary analysis data, including trace
and pulse data, read-length, distribution, polymerase speed, and quality measurement, is
streamed directly to the secondary analysis software called SMRT Analysis that is capable of
processing sequencing data in real time. The secondary analysis tools also include a full suite
of tools to analyze single-molecule sequencing data for a broad range of applications.
4.2. Helicos sequencing by the genetic analysis system
The Helicos sequencing system was the first commercial implementation of single-molecule
fluorescent sequencing [66, 78], marketed by the now bankrupt Helicos Biosciences. Today,
the sequencing provider Seqll (http://seqll.com) sequences genomic DNA and RNA using the
Helicos sequencing system and HeliScope single-molecule sequencers. DNA is sheared, tailed
with polyA, and hybridized to a flow cell surface containing oligo-dT for sequencing-by-
synthesis of billions of molecules in parallel. The polyA-tailed fragments of DNA molecules
are hybridized directly to the oligo-dT50 bound on the surface of disposable glass flow cells.
The addition of fluorescent nucleotides with a terminating nucleotide pauses the cyclical
process until an image of one nucleotide for each DNA sequence has been captured, and then
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
the process is repeated until the fragments have been completely sequenced [75, 76]. This
sequencing system is a combination of sequencing by hybridization and sequencing by
synthesis using a DNA polymerase [79]. Sample preparation does not require ligation or PCR
amplification and, therefore, largely avoids the GC content and size biases observed in other
technologies [56]. The HeliScope sequencing read lengths range from 25 to over 60 bases, with
35 bases being the average. This method has successfully sequenced the human genome [80]
to provide disease signatures in a clinical evaluation [81] and sequenced RNA to produce
quantitative transcriptomes of tissues and cells [82].
4.3. Nanopore sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (MinION and PromethION)
Oxford Nanopore Technologies provides the latest single-molecule sequencing system [83,
84]. The MinION Mkl is a portable handheld device for DNA and RNA sequencing that
attaches directly to a laptop/computer using a USB port, whereas the PromethION is a small
bench-top system. Nanopore sequencing uses pores formed from proteins, such as haemoly‐
sin, a biological protein channel system in Staphylococcus aureus [85]. The idea behind DNA
and RNA sequencing using nanopores is that the conductivity of ion currents in the pore
changes when the strand of nucleic acid passes through it [83]. The flow of ion current depends
on the shape of the molecule translocating through the pore. Since nucleotides have different
shapes, each nucleotide is recognized by its effect on the change of the ionic current [86]. The
key advantage of this approach is that sample preparation is minimal compared to second-
generation sequencing methods, and long read lengths can be obtained in the kbp range. In
addition, there are no amplification or ligation steps required before sequencing. The main
problem with this technology is the requirement to optimize the speed of DNA translocation
through the nanopore to ensure reliable measurement of the ionic current changes and reduce
the high error rates of base calling [83–86]. At this time, Oxford Nanopore Technologies is in
the beta testing phase, and users are required to join the MinION Access Programme and pay
a fee of $1000 [83] to access a MinION starter pack (3 MinION MkI flow cells, a Nanopore
sequencing kit, and a wash kit). Laver et al. [87] have assessed the performance of an earlier
version of the MinION sequencing device and concluded that “the MinION is an exciting
prospect; however, the current error rate limits its ability to compete with existing sequencing
technologies, though we do show that MinION sequence reads can enhance contiguity of de
novo assembly when used in conjunction with Illumina MiSeq data.” They resequenced three
bacterial genomes and estimated the error rate to be 38.2%, with mean and median reads of 2
and 1 kb, respectively, and with the longest single read of 98 kb. The low depth of coverage
provided by the present nanopore technology is a possible barrier to accurate eukaryotic
genome sequencing at the moment. Nevertheless, these are not intangibles and nanopore
nucleic acid sequencing is envisaged to include methylation and direct RNA sequencing in the
near future [83].
4.4. NGS by electron microscopy
The sequence of long, intact DNA molecules can be visualized and identified by using electron
microscopy. The first report on the successful application of electron microscopy for NGS was
for the partial sequencing of DNA base pairs within intact DNA molecules using synthesized
genomes of 3.3 and 7.2 kb length that were sequenced by enzymatically incorporating modified
bases that contained atoms of increased atomic number and allowed for the direct visualization
and identification of individually labeled bases [88]. In this sequencing process, the double
strands of the DNA sample are separated into single strands using common enzymes and
reactions. Then, the single-stranded DNA is labeled by PCR using dNTPs attached to heavy-
atom metal labels that can be separated into identifiable electron microscope-generated images
showing large black dots, small black dots, and large gray dots along the DNA molecule
linearized by ZSG threading. Standard image-based technologies perform the reads and
analysis of the labeled DNA using image analysis software that provides sequence data in real
time. The sequenced molecules are reads in the range of 5 to 50 kb in length that are useful for
de novo genome assembly and for analysis of full haplotypes and copy number variants. The
company ZS Genetics (http://www.zsgenetics.com) offers a service to provide accurate, long-
read, single-molecule DNA sequences using the NGS electron microscopy platform.
5. NGS service providers
Researchers who cannot afford to purchase NGS machines at prices varying between $80,000
and over 1 million USD (depending on the platform) plus the many add-ons, computing
requirements, and infrastructural changes, instead, might consider using one of the many
available sequencing service providers. For example, Novogene, which was founded in Beijing
in 2011 and now is located also in Great Britain and the USA, provides NGS for human, animal,
plant, and microbe applications using Illumina MiSeq, HiSeq, and X platforms for whole-
genome de novo sequencing and resequencing, exome sequencing, targeted sequencing,
transcriptomics for mRNA and small RNA, and metagenomics. Similarly, the South Korean
company Macrogen provides all the NGS services using Illumina platforms as well as
epigenome sequencing for methylations by bisulfite conversion, methyl-CpG binding domain,
or chromatin immunoprecipitation. Prices may vary between $500 and $2,000 USD per sample
depending on the sequencing project and the project workflow from sample preparation to
bioinformatics analysis (https://www.scienceexchange.com). Table 2 lists some of the service
providers, and others can be accessed at http://omicsmaps.com.
Service provider Platforms DNA sequencing RNA-seq Methyl-seq Web address

(TS WG WES)
BGI All +++ + + bgiamericas.com
Novogene Illumina +++ + + novogene.com
Macrogen Illumina +++ + + macrogen.com

Ion Torrent +++ + +
CD Genomics Illumina +++ + + cd-genomics.com

Ion Torrent +++ + +
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
Service provider Platforms DNA sequencing RNA-seq Methyl-seq Web address

(TS WG WES)
PacBioRS II +++ + +
CEA** +
SeqWright Genomic Illumina +++ + + seqwright.com/researchservices

Ion Torrent +++ + +
Roche 454 +++ +
EpigenDx Ion Torrent + epigendx.com
Centrillion Genomic Illumina +++ + centrillionbio.com
NXT-DX Illumina + + nxt-dx.com
AGRF*** Illumina +++ + + agrf.org.au

CEA** +
Broad Institute Illumina +++ + + genomics.broadinstitute.org
Illumina Illumina +++ + + illumina.com
Exiqon Illumina + exiqon.com
SEQLL Helicos +++ + + seqll.com
Eurofins Genomics Illumina +++ + eurofinsgenomics.eu

Roche 454 +++
Ion Torrent +-+
PacBioRS II +-+
Millennium Science PacBioRS II +++ + mscience.com.au/view/
Oxford Nanopore MINion +++ + nanoporetech.com

Technologies
Complete Genomics Nanoball arrays + + completegenomics.com
Table 2. NGS service providers. In the DNA sequencing column, TS is targeted sequencing, WG is whole-genome
sequencing, and WES is whole-exome sequencing. *RNA-seq includes whole transcriptome, mRNA, long, small, and
microRNA sequencing. **Methyl-seq (methylation sequencing) or epigenetic analysis is usually performed by bisulfite
sequencing and either NGS or capillary electrophoresis analysis (CEA). Other analyses such as MBD, MeDIP-seq, or
ChIP-seq may be provided. Helicos and PacBio platforms also enable the detection of methylation sites. ***AGRF =
Australian Genomic Research Facility. Most of the listed service providers also may perform sample and library
preparation, Sanger sequencing, specialist genotyping, data analysis, and bioinformatics service. Other service
providers can be accessed via the High-Throughput Sequencing Map site at http://omicsmaps.com.
6. Performance of NGS platforms and sequencing errors
All NGS systems produce unique sequencing errors and biases that need to be identified and
corrected. The major sequencing errors are largely related to high-frequency indel polymor‐
phisms, homopolymeric regions, GC- and AT-rich regions, replicate bias, and substitution
errors [89–91]. While the PGM quality scores underestimate the base accuracy, the Roche 454
quality scores tend to overestimate the base accuracy. A key consideration for generating high-
quality, unbiased, and interpretable data from next-generation sequencing studies is to achieve
sufficient sequence depth and coverage for statistical certainty. Low sequencing depth can
contribute to high error rates stemming from base calling and mapping errors, which in turn
can affect the statistical significance for identifying true genotypes, nucleotide variants, and
single nucleotide polymorphism. Increased depth of coverage can help sequence alignment
mapping to differentiate between true variants and errors, although it might not resolve errors
due to assembly gaps. Good sequence library preparation is paramount to producing good
sequence depth and coverage. A number of different library methods are available to achieve
this goal depending on the NGS applications [55]. Sims et al. [92] reviewed in critical detail the
guidelines and precedents for optimal sequencing depth and coverage in regard to sequencing
genomes, exomes, transcriptomes, methylomes, and epigenomes by chromatin immunopre‐
cipitation and sequencing and/or chromosome conformation capture.
No single study has compared the performance of all the available NGS platforms simultane‐
ously using the same control genomic sequences. However, a comparison of three bench-top
sequencers, the Roche GS Junior, the Illumina MiSeq, and Ion PGM, revealed large differences
in cost, sequence capacity, and performance outcomes of genome depth, stability of coverage
and read lengths, and quality for sequencing bacterial genomes [54, 93]. Most sequencing
errors arose with indel polymorphisms, GC-rich regions, and homopolymeric regions. Overall,
the two laboratories concluded that all the machines had certain limitations that needed to be
taken into account when designing sequencing experiments [54, 93]. In a comparison of
bacterial genome sequencing between PacBio, Ion Torrent, and three Illumina machines
(MiSeq, GAIIx, and HiSeq 2000), the sequencers all provided high accuracy for GC-rich,
neutral, and moderately AT-rich genomes [94]. The main exception was the poor coverage in
the extremely AT-rich region of Plasmodium falciparum with a single 316 chip for the Ion Torrent
PGM that resulted in no coverage for 30% of the genome. In this study, PacBio generated the
longest reads but produced the least accurate SNP detection and the highest error rate of 13%
compared to 1.78% for Ion Torrent and less than 0.04% for the Illumina platforms. In a different
comparison, the performance of whole-genome sequencing platforms Illumina’s HiSeq2000,
Life Technologies’ SOLiD 4 and 5500xl SOLiD, and Complete Genomics’ sequencing system
were evaluated for their ability to call SNVs and to evenly cover the genome and specific
genomic regions [95]. The authors concluded that all the platforms had their shortfalls with a
pronounced GC bias in GC-rich regions and false-positive rates and that the best solution is
to integrate the sequencing data from the four different platforms because it combined the
strengths of different technologies. In an analysis of bacterial CREBBP exons, three different
NGS platforms appear to have worked comparably well for targeted exomic sequencing with
the percentage of total read numbers aligned to a reference sequence resulting in 99.8% for
Roche 454, 98.1% for Illumina MiSeq, and 90.7% for Ion Torrent PGM sequence reads [96].
However, the Illumina MiSeq data showed the highest substitution error rate, whereas the
PGM data revealed the highest indel error rate. On the other hand, there was little difference
between the Junior Roche and the Ion PGM platforms for ”in phase” sequence genotyping of
HLA loci, and either platform could be used with excellent results [16]. In this case, the lower
cost of reagents and a slightly quicker turnaround time favored the Ion PGM platform [97].
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
Five sequencing platforms, Illumina HiSeq, Ion PGM, Ion Proton, PacBio RS, and Roche 454,
were tested in a comparative evaluation of RNA-seq reproducibility using reference RNA
standards at 19 laboratory sites [20]. The results showed high intraplatform and interplatform
concordance for expression measures across the deep-count regions but highly variable
reproducibility for splice junction and variant detection between all platforms. Despite fewer
bases sequenced, the Proton, PGM, and 454 platforms detected more known junctions
compared to Illumina HiSeq.
7. Bioinformatics: DNA and RNA data analysis and storage
Bioinformatics is a major rate-limiting step for NGS technology with respect to overcoming
the growing challenges of storage, analysis, and interpretation of NGS data [98–100]. There
are at least four tiers of nucleotide sequence analysis to consider when using the NGS platforms
[98–104]. The first is generation of sequence reads using the software integrated within the
sequencing instruments that convert the raw signals into base calling with short reads of
nucleotide sequences and associated quality scores. The second is the alignment and assembly
of contigs and scaffolds and variant detection. The third is annotation, data integration, and
visualization of the assembled sequence. The fourth is the amalgamation of all the data from
the different NGS platforms into a single, coherent, bioinformatic output with accessible links
and tools for general and particular biological or forensic interest. The Internet-web addresses
to source the bioinformatics tools and databases for NGS data analysis from the original raw
sequencing data to functional biology can be obtained from the following references [99–104]
and Table 3.
The raw sequencing signals produced by the manufacturer’s sequencing machine or system
are converted into nucleotide bases of short read data (base calling) with base quality scoring
using the system’s FASTQ format or the native raw data file formats (Illumina, SFF, HDF5,
CG, or SOLID). Storage of raw signal (image) and sequencing data as short read archives in
the FASTQ format or native raw data file formats is a problem in regard to computing resources
for many research sequencing laboratories and commercial service providers. Thus, the
conversion of FASTQ files to the more compact Sequence Alignment Map (SAM) format and
its compressed Binary Alignment Map (BAM) format is recommended because it is easier to
read and process for later bioinformatics analysis [99, 102]. The safe storage of the original raw
sequences is important for bioinformatics analysis and corrections because it is the source of
the initial sequencing errors that are either filtered out or left within the final assembled
sequence. Quality checks are necessary to remove reads with low phred levels, sequence errors,
and sequences such as primers, vectors, adapters, tags, and tails that were introduced exper‐
imentally during the preparation of the sequencing libraries [101]. Errors or biases associated
with raw reads from the Illumina, Roche, and SOLiD platforms are mainly fluorophore-
dependent errors, whereas the non-fluorophore platforms such as Ion Torrent produce their
own unique errors and biases [99, 101]. Therefore, many different signal and image detection
programs and base calling algorithms still need to be developed and tested in an attempt to
improve the accuracy of base calling [101}. The raw sequence data (a mixture of raw files and
other metadata) from the NGS technologies can be submitted to the NCBI Sequence Read
Archive database for DNA studies and to Gene Expression Omnibus and ArrayExpress for
mRNA-seq or ChIP-Seq studies in order to receive a database accession number and to
reference the raw sequence data in scientific publications [105]. The Sequence Read Archive
(SRA) at NCBI also provides a fee-free, downloadable SRA computing toolkit to read the raw
graphs and files from the different NGS platforms and to convert between different file formats
(Table 3). Archive files in the SRA format (.sra) are converted into the FASTQ or SAM/BAM
formats for input to downstream analysis using software programs (Table 3) to undertake the
second tier analysis of sequence alignment (spliced and genomic), assembly, and variant
detection.
The requirement for sequence alignment and variant detection at the second tier of bioinfor‐
matics depends on the complexity of the NGS project. Small sequence reads from small
genomes (e.g., viruses) are less complex and easier to compute and align and assemble than
the many more reads generated from large genomes of mammals or higher plants. The transfer
of the preedited DNA data in the correct format to alignment and variant detection software
is generally straightforward and there are many free and commercial software packages
available to perform these tasks [99–104]. As often is the case, a single package does not suit
all analytical requirements. There may need to be a degree of interchange and testing to find
the best solutions as well as using appropriate and informative controls for standardization
and normalization. Schlotterer et al. [104] have reviewed programs for genotype and SNP
calling. ANGSD is a new multithreaded program suite that was developed recently to perform
association mapping, population genetic analyses (population structure measures, allele
frequency for cases and controls, admixture, and neutrality tests), SNP discovery, and
genotype calling using the raw sequence data and genotype likelihoods in NGS data of human
DNA samples for the 1000 Genomes Project [106].
The alignment of sequences to provide long assemblies (contigs and/or scaffolds) may take
two different paths. One is comparative mapping of short reads aligned to reference sequences
and the other is de novo assembly of overlapping reads [101]. The accuracy of de novo assembly
can be confirmed or improved by integrating it with comparative alignment mapping to
reference genomic sequences. Sequencing assemblers may employ different graph construc‐
tion algorithms and preprocessing and postprocessing filter computations to flag, correct, or
eliminate sequencing errors with no single computation solution. Some genome assemblers
forgo the preprocess filtering step and they all differ in their ease of use, in the accuracy,
efficiency, and quality of assembly, ability to fill gaps, and differentiate between error driven
variants and true variants or SNPs and in the detection and elimination of repeats and
sequencing errors [99]. According to El-Metwally et al. [99], an ideal assembler should have a
set of layers with clearly defined inputs, communication output messages to facilitate the
development of innovative, interactive, independent assemblers using the SAM/BAM file
formats and the language of FASTG (http://fastg.sourceforge.net) for the next-generation
environment. Another way to improve the quality of sequencing and assembly is to adopt a
hybrid approach by using two or more different sequencing platforms and assembly software.
A new software package anytag that fills gaps between paired-end reads to generate near-error-
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
free contigs of up to 190 kb appears to be a fivefold improvement over existing de novo genome
assemblers such as soap and Newbler [107].
In a recent evaluation of the most commonly used de novo genome assemblers to assemble the
genomes of three vertebrate species (snake, bird, and fish) by Assemblathon, the authors
recommended not to trust the results of any single assembly, nor place too much faith in a
single metric of quality or accuracy, but instead to choose an assembler that excels in the area
of interest and expectation to provide sufficient coverage, continuity, and error-free bases
[108]. End users were reminded that the use of the assembly tools is not straightforward and
that they should first gain considerable familiarity with the computing hardware and software
and become aware of the ”ease of installation, use, and management” of each assembly tool.
Many problems with de novo genome assembly remain inherent with recognizing and
evaluating highly heterozygous and repetitive regions, segmental duplications, and sequenc‐
ing errors and gaps. This is complicated further by the different read lengths, read counts, and
error profiles that are produced by different NGS technologies. In addition, most assembled
genomic sequences in publicly accessible databases are at the level of or below a standard draft
(minimum standards for submission to public databases) rather than a ”high-quality draft”
assembly that is completed to at least 90% of the expected genome size.
The third tier of bioinformatics is to annotate, transcribe, and translate the genomic sequences
to a higher informatics level, such as defining gene exon coding (CDS) and noncoding (5′
noncoding, introns, and 3′ terminal end) untranslated regions (UTRs), alternate transcript
isoforms, signal peptides, repeat elements, and other nontranscribed regions such as viral
integration sites and chromosomal common fragile sites [103]. Genomic sequences of prokar‐
yotes are a thousand times smaller and less complex than those of eukaryotes and consequently
are easier to assemble and annotate. A typical methodology for prokaryote annotation
suggested by the National Pathogen Data Resource to annotate 1000 genomes is to first submit
the genomic sequence to the Rapid Annotation Server (RAST) at the Argonne National
Laboratory and receive back the protein-encoded genes (CDS), the RNA-encoded genes
(tRNAs and rRNAs), and identified subsystems such as metabolic pathways, complex
structures, and phenotypes (Table 3). This initial annotation should then be reanalyzed in detail
to find discrepancies between the sequence and the translation using any other public or
commercial genomic tools to fix miscalled genes and variants, frameshifts, insertion sequences,
and pseudogenes. The public web server CRISPRfinder detects and annotates the bacterial
CRISPRs and tandem repeat sequences that may impact on genes and pseudogenes (Table 3).
After the reanalysis and final fixes, the annotated and curated genome should be rerun through
RAST to update the subsystems output. Other useful web-based microbial annotation servers
can be accessed at MicroScope, BASys, and NCBI’s Prokaryotic Genome Annotation Pipeline
(PGAP), with additional software provided at Prokka (Table 3). A typical prokaryotic genome
annotation process is outlined at NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annota‐
tion_prok/process/).
Eukaryote genome annotation is more complex and challenging than prokaryote genome
annotation. In an overview of the available tools and best practices for eukaryotic genome
annotation, Yandell and Ence [103] pointed to five basic categories of annotation software: (1)
ab initio and evidence-drivable gene predictors; (2) EST, protein, and RNA-seq aligners and
assemblers; (3) choosers and combiners; (4) genome annotation pipelines; and (5) genome
browsers for curation. A typical eukaryotic genome annotation pipeline is outlined by NCBI
at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annotation_euk/process/. The essential first step for
eukaryote genome annotation and gene determination is to identify and mask repeat elements
(microsatellites, retrotransposons, and transposons) using RepeatMasker, Censor, or Win‐
dowMasker (Table 3). Without the initial masking step, the repeats would seed millions of
spurious BLAST alignments and create incorrect gene annotations and corrupt the genome
annotation with artifacts and false metadata. After masking, the annotation pipeline includes
the following steps: transcript, RNA-seq read, protein/domain alignments; guided/ab initio
gene model predictions; curated genomic sequence alignments; selection of the best evidence
based models; gene naming and locus typing; assignment of GeneIDs; and annotation of small
RNAs. In addition, there are the special considerations such as annotation of multiple assem‐
blies and updated assemblies before the annotated products can obtain an Annotation Release
number and a release date for availability in various NCBI resources, including the databases
for nucleotides, proteins, BLAST, gene, Map Viewer, and FTP sites. Other websites and tools
considered important for eukaryote annotation are BUSCO for assessing the “core” eukaryote
genes, Babelomics for the functional analysis of transcriptomic and genomic data, the PASA
and MAKER tools for updating annotations with RNA-seq data, and other data and informa‐
tion (Table 3). The annotated and mapped data can then be integrated, visualized, and
presented at a fourth tier of bioinformatics with genome browsers such as those displayed at
UCSC, Ensembl, JBrowse, Web Apollo (Table 3), and others such as Genome Maps [109]. The
new Emsembl 2015 provides an up-to-date genomic interpretation system for annotations,
query tools, and access methods for chordates and key model organisms [110].
Gene ontology is a bioinformatics initiative that provides (a) defined terms representing gene
product properties and pathways covering biological domains such as cellular components,
molecular function, and biological processes with their various subcategories and (b) func‐
tional annotation tools to find functions for large gene lists. It sits somewhere between the third
tier (annotation) and the fourth tier of bioinformatic analyses and structures. The first major
Gene Ontology (GO) project was founded in 1998 to address a need for standard filtered
descriptions of gene products across different databases. GO is a collaborative effort that
started between three model organism databases, FlyBase (Drosophila), the Saccharomyces
Genome Database (SGD) and the Mouse Genome Database (MGD) but now incorporates many
databases for plant, animal, and microbial genomes. The GO Contributors page lists all
member organizations (http://geneontology.org/page/go-consortium-contributors-list). Some
other ontology providers among many are the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies
(OBBO), Reactome, DAVID, and the KEGG Pathway database (Table 3).
NGS manufacturers provide their own unique software for the first tier analysis to process the
raw acquisition data and produce read files that contain high-quality consensus reads for the
draft assemblies. However, only a few have attempted to include all three tiers of nucleotide
sequence analysis into a fourth tier that is an easily accessible single integrated package.
Illumina has provided the BaseSpace genomics cloud-computing program for integrated data
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
storage and analysis (Table 3). This cloud storage and analysis program permits instrument
integration with sequence analysis viewing and access to a wide range of software applications
to align, assemble, and analyze reads and variants for RNA and DNA. These apply to various
workflows, including basic analyses for prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomics and transcrip‐
tomics, metagenomics, and for more specialist interests such as detection and analysis of tumor
variants, haplotype analysis, pathways and networks, forensic profiles, and many others, too
numerous to list here. In comparison, Ion Torrent has storage devices and servers with a web
browser driving the Torrent Suite Software (Table 3) on computers attached to their respective
sequencing instruments. The manufacturer’s software can be used to preprocess the DNA
sequencing read data before transferring the preedited data onto other analytical software
systems that are either provided by the manufacturer (vendor) or obtained from elsewhere.
The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) is an example of a fourth tier
bioinformatics provider (Table 3) that is a free, one-stop shop for DNA and RNA sequence
data, analysis, and information. There are direct links at NCBI to 65 accessible databases, 35
download sites (for databases, tools, and utilities), 17 public submission portals, and 60
computing tools for sequence and data analysis, reports, and tutorials. In addition, NCBI is a
resource for books and journals through its online library and the PubMed webpage.
Program Website
1. Aligner, assembly, and postassembly tools
MUMmer aligner http://mummer.sourceforge.net
Bowtie aligner http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/index.shtml
TopHat RNA-seq aligner https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/tophat/index.shtml
Anytag aligner http://sourceforge.net/projects/anytag/files/anytag2.0/
Soap de novo assembler http://soap.genomics.org.cn/soapdenovo.html
Allpaths-LG assembler http://www.broadinstitute.org/software/allpaths-lg/blog/
Celera assembler http://wgs-assembler.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Velvet assembler https://www.ebi.ac.uk/~zerbino/velvet/
SPAdes assembler http://bioinf.spbau.ru/spades
Galaxy tools https://usegalaxy.org
Genomic tools http://molbiol-tools.ca/Genomics.htm
BaseSpace Illumina https://basespace.illumina.com/home/sequence
Torrent Suite Software http://www.lifetechnologies.com/torrentsuite
RATT: rapid annotation transfer tool http://ratt.sourceforge.net
2. Prokaryote annotation web servers
RAST http://www.nmpdr.org/FIG/wiki/view.cgi/FIG/RapidAnnotationServer
http://rast.nmpdr.org
Program Website
CRISPRfinder http://crispr.u-psud.fr/Server/CRISPRfinder.php
Mreps http://bioinfo.lifl.fr/mreps/mreps.php
MicroScope https://www.genoscope.cns.fr/agc/microscope/home/index.php
BaSys https://www.basys.ca
PGAP http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annotation_prok/
Prokka http://www.vicbioinformatics.com/software.prokka.shtml
3. Eukaryote annotation web servers
NCBI pipeline http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/annotation_euk/process/
RepeatMasker http://www.repeatmasker.org/
Censor http://www.girinst.org/censor/
WindowMasker http://nebc.nerc.ac.uk/bioinformatics/docs/windowmasker.html
CEGMA tool http://korflab.ucdavis.edu/datasets/cegma/
BUSCO http://busco.ezlab.org
PASA http://pasapipeline.github.io
MAKER http://www.yandell-lab.org/software/maker.html
Babelomics http://www.babelomics.org
4. Archives and databases
DDBJ http://www.ddbj.nig.ac.jp
EMBL http://www.embl.org
GenBank http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/
REPBASE http://www.girinst.org
dbSNP http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/SNP/snp_summary.cgi
dbGAP http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap
Complete Genomics data http://www.completegenomics.com/public-data/
SRA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra
OMIM http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim
COSMIC http://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic
ENCODE https://www.encodeproject.org
GTEx http://www.gtexportal.org
FANTOM http://fantom.gsc.riken.jp
Roadmap epigenomics http://www.roadmapepigenomics.org
Blueprint epigenomics http://www.blueprint-epigenome.eu
Regulome DB http://regulomedb.org
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
Program Website
ExPASy proteomics http://www.expasy.org/proteomics/protein-protein_interaction
PRIDE proteomics http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/archive/
FAME metabolomics http://f-a-m-e.fame-vu.cloudlet.sara.nl
Metabolomexpress https://www.metabolome-express.org
MetaboAnalyst http://www.metaboanalyst.ca
AromaDeg http://aromadeg.siona.helmholtz-hzi.de
EGA phenome https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ega/home
GOLD https://gold.jgi-psf.org
MG-RAST https://metagenomics.anl.gov
ViralZone http://viralzone.expasy.org
UCNEbase UC elements http://ccg.vital-it.ch/UCNEbase/
UCbase 2.0 UC elements http://ucbase.unimore.it/
DEG database http://www.essentialgene.org
PhylomeDB http://phylomedb.org/
Compara GeneTrees http://asia.ensembl.org
TreeFam http://treefam.genomics.org.cn
PANTHER http://pantherdb.org
FATCAT http://phylogenomics.berkeley.edu
HOGENOM database http://doua.prabi.fr
5. Gene ontology databases and tools
Gene Ontology Consortium http://geneontology.org
OBBO http://www.obofoundry.org, http://obofoundry.github.io
Reactome http://www.reactome.org/
DAVID 6.7 https://david.ncifcrf.gov/
KEGG Pathway database http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway.html
6. Genome browsers, projects, and fourth tier providers
Kbase http://kbase.us/glossary/systems-biology/
Earth Microbiome Project http://www.earthmicrobiome.org
Terragenome Project http://www.terragenome.org
Tara Oceans Project http://ocean-microbiome.embl.de/companion.html
MetaHit project http://www.metahit.eu
Vertebrate Genome 10K http://genome10k.org
Human Microbiome http://hmpdacc.org

Program Website
Personal Genome Project http://www.personalgenomes.org
1000 Genomes Project http://www.1000genomes.org
HapMap http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
UCSC browser https://genome.ucsc.edu
Ensembl browser http://www.ensembl.org
Jbrowse browser http://jbrowse.org
Web Apollo browser http://genomearchitect.org
NCBI mapview http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/mapview/
NCBI resources http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/all/ - tab-all_
KEGG http://www.genome.jp/kegg/
7. Optical mappers
BioNano mapper http://www.bionanogenomics.com
Whole-Genome Mapping http://opgen.com/genomic-services/what-is-whole-genome-mapping
8. NGS and bioinformatics software providers and biological databases
Omicsmap for NGS http://omicsmaps.com/
The NGS WikiBook http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Sequencing_(NGS)
The Sequencing Marketplace http://allseq.com
Genomeweb https://www.genomeweb.com
Bioinformatic software http://seqanswers.com/wiki/Software/list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-source_bioinformatics_software
http://bioinformaticssoftwareandtools.co.in
Bioinformatics Web http://www.bioinformaticsweb.net
Biological databases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biological_databases
Applied Bioinformatics http://www.appliedbioinformatics.com.au
Table 3. Useful websites for NGS tools, browsers, portals, providers, and online databases.
8. Impact and applications of NGS: Opening the doors into the world of
“omics”
All hereditary information is contained within the structure, organization, and function of an
organism’s genome. The continual emergence of many new public bioinformatics databases
(Table 3) on the World Wide Web demonstrates and reflects the impact of NGS on the life
sciences and our need to constantly develop new methods to interrogate and decode hereditary
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
information in and around DNA (or RNA for some viruses) and its nucleotide sequences
(http://www.bioinformaticsweb.net).
Although genomics is a relatively young field, arguably starting sometime between 1976 with
the publication of the bacteriophage MS2 RNA genome [111] and 1986 when the word ”ge‐
nomics” was first used [112], it already has made an enormous impact on the life sciences. The
term ”genomics” coined by Thomas Roderick in 1986 encompassed the structure and function
of genes, and comparative genomics elucidated the hereditary relationships and evolution
within and between different species [112]. Since the advent of NGS, the meaning of ”genom‐
ics” has been narrowed more towards mapping the structure and organization of genomes
and differentiating between de novo sequences, resequenced genomes, exonic or targeted
sequences, and metagenomic sequences. The other implied meanings of ”genomics” are
attributed now to the suffix “-omics,” added to integrated fields undertaken on a large or
genome-wide scale such as transcriptomics, haplomics, methylomics, epigenomics, proteo‐
mics, metabolomics, nutrigenomics, physiomics, evolomics, epidemiomics, systeomics,
personomics, multinomics, etc. [113]. Thus, NGS broadens our understanding of structural
and functional genomics through the concepts of “omics” to provide new insight into the
workings and meaning of genetic conservation and diversity of living things (http://
www.nature.com/omics/index.html). It is more than ever about how different organisms use
genetics and molecular biology to survive and reproduce with and without mutations, disease,
and diversity within their own life cycles and within their population networks and changing
environmental conditions.
8.1. Genomics
A detailed organizational analysis and an understanding of the full landscape of a genome are
possible only after de novo whole-genome shotgun sequencing and annotation has been
performed [11]. WGS has had an enormous impact on viral, bacterial, and archaeal genomics
[114–117]. Some of these successes are provided in the metagenomics section (see section 8.5).
Others have reviewed the impact of WGS and genomics on fungi [118, 119], algae [120], animals
[121, 122], and humans [10, 13, 123–127]. WGS has become increasingly easier, faster, and
cheaper because of technological improvements and the availability of hundreds of sequenced
genomes that can be used as references for annotation. Although it seems unlikely that the
genomes of all the 11 million extant worldwide species will ever be or need to be sequenced,
the genomic sequences for a large number of eukaryote species are already available for
scientific scrutiny, including the genomes of some endangered vertebrate species that may
need assistance in the management of their breeding and survival [122]. In 2009, an interna‐
tional consortium established the Genome 10K Project to sequence and analyze the complete
genomes of 10,000 vertebrate species (http://genome10k.org).
NGS has blasted human genomics into an exciting new era of genetic investigation geared
towards humanomics and disease (see section 8.9) and the management of an individual’s life
cycle and health issues by way of personal genomes or personomics [123]. Targeted or whole-
genome resequencing of individuals from within the same or different species is aimed to
detect and catalogue SNPs, mutations, and sequence variants such as indels, copy number,
and structural variations [14–16]. PCR-based candidate gene and whole-exome analysis are
two widely used methods that can be performed with higher coverage and at much lower cost
than whole-genome resequencing. Genotyping HLA genes of humans for clinical diagnosis or
research by sequencing the entire gene [97, 128] or just the exons [129] is an example of targeted
resequencing to identify polymorphisms that are important in tissue or cell matching for
transplantation [130]. Exomics is targeted specifically towards coding genes and discovering
exonic mutations responsible for rare Mendelian disorders such as hearing loss, intellectual
disabilities, and movement disorders and for investigating common disorders such as heart
disease, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer [13, 123, 125], and many others that are listed at
the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database (Table 3, [49]). In contrast to WES,
WGS can assess alterations in the coding genes and the regulatory and noncoding regions [123,
126], especially multiallelic copy number variations [127]. Cancer research has shown that it
is important to target all types of somatic/germ-line genetic alterations, including nucleotide
substitutions, small insertions and deletions (indels), CNVs, and chromosomal rearrange‐
ments in the noncoding regions [13, 15, 123]. WGS has been used to identify variants, indels,
and multiple numbers of genes involved in rare and common diseases such as Charcot-Marie-
Tooth neuropathy, dopa-responsive dystonia, acquired essential thrombocytosis, erythrocy‐
tosis, and many others [123, 126].
8.2. Transcriptomics and RNA sequencing
RNA-seq is the NGS method that sequences the transcriptome, that is, all the RNA transcript
sets expressed by the genome in cells, tissues, and organs at different stages of an organism’s
life cycle [12, 18, 19, 20, 30]. High-throughput RNA sequencing using cDNA fragments was
first employed in mammalian cells [131] and yeast [132], and now it is used for a wide range
of organisms [133]. Without transcriptome data, the genome sequence alone is of limited use
for understanding the intricacies of genome function in biology. RNA-seq provides technical
reliability and sensitivity and unambiguous maps of the transcribed regions of the genome
with high accuracy in quantitative expression levels, identification of tissue-specific transcript
variants and isoforms (SNPs and mutations), transcription boundaries and splicing events,
transcription factors, and small and large noncoding RNAs (ncRNA) involved in the regulation
of gene expression [131–137].
At least 90% of the mammalian genome is actively transcribed to produce different classes of
ncRNAs [135, 136], including ribosomal RNA (rRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA), microRNA
(miRNA), small nuclear RNA (snRNA), small nucleolar RNA (snoRNA), small interfering
RNA (siRNA), PIWI-interacting RNA (piRNA), and large intergenic noncoding RNA (lincR‐
NA) [138–141] and retrotransposons [142–146]. The known classes of functional ncRNAs
consists largely of those supporting protein translation (ribosomal, transfer, and small
nucleolar RNAs), transcript splicing (snRNAs) [137, 138], and miRNA that target conserved
binding sites of mRNAs to decrease their stability [139]. The new class of small piRNA was
discovered to interact with PIWI regulatory proteins and RNA to silence transposons in the
germ line and regulate gene expression in the soma [140]. The lincRNAs are expressed by a
different class of actively transcribed RNA genes and they have diverse roles in processes such
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
as cell cycle regulation, immune responses, brain processes, and gametogenesis [147–150]. A
substantial fraction of lincRNAs binds to chromatin-modifying proteins and may modulate
gene expression by bringing together protein complexes for specific functions [150].
Defective splicing of transcripts and expression levels are believed to contribute to at least 50%
of inherited human diseases [151]. Altered expression levels of specific isoforms or alleles have
been identified in ischemic stroke, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, chronic lymphocytic
leukemia, and many other diseases [30]. Dysregulation of gene expression, splicing, and other
editing events in specific cell types have been associated also with the pathogenesis of
cardiovascular diseases, neurological disorders, and different cancers [137, 151–153]. Similarly,
different classes of small and large ncRNAs have been found to be associated with different
diseases and cancers [147–149]. The expressed information of the transcriptome varies
enormously between different cells of a multicellular organism and depends on the cell type
and its functional and temporal state. At least two important databases, the Encyclopedia of
DNA Elements (ENCODE) and Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) (Table 3), have focused
on mapping functional elements at high resolution and the regulation of gene expression and
the transcriptome in different tissues of humans. The GTEx project is one of the most recent
projects that have generated a large amount of RNA sequence data by RNA-seq technology to
investigate the patterns of transcriptome variation across 43 tissues and 1641 samples from 175
postmortem individuals [153]. The analysis included 20,110 protein-coding genes and 11,790
lncRNAs with 88% and 71%, respectively, detected in at least one sample. A relatively small
number of genes (a few hundred) were expressed for most tissues with a definite, differential
modular profile showing tissue-preferential expression. In addition, 3,046 protein-coding
genes were expressed together with an adjoining repeat element such as Alu, L1, ERV, Tigger,
and Charlie [153]. These findings provide a better systematic understanding of the heteroge‐
neity among a diverse set of human tissues and the enormous complexity and variation
involved in the regulation of genome expression.
8.3. Methylomics and epigenomics
Epigenomics is the study of heritable gene regulation that does not involve the DNA nucleotide
coding sequence itself but acts on a genome-wide scale via DNA nucleotide methylation and
posttranslational modifications of histones, the interaction between transcription factors and
their targets, and nucleosome positioning [23–30]. Methylomics is the genome-wide analysis
of DNA methylations and their effects on gene expression and heredity [28]. Methyl-seq uses
NGS to analyze and map DNA cytosine methylation at single-base resolution usually by
employing bisulfite DNA sequencing [24, 25]. Treatment of genomic DNA with sodium
bisulfite converts cytosines but not methylcytosines to uracils so that the uracils are PCR
converted and sequence differentiated at the SNP locations as thymidines and the methylcy‐
tosines are sequenced as cytosines. Bisulfite DNA sequencing is used widely for DNA
methylation profiling in various organisms as well as humans for assessing disease genes [23,
27, 29].
ChIP-seq is chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) that is followed by NGS sequencing. It

permits genome-wide profiling of DNA-binding proteins and histone and nucleosome
modifications [30]. The ChIP-seq technology was partly adapted from microarray ChIP-chip
technology and first implemented in 2007 and since then has been used widely to analyze
transcription factor binding sites, histone modifications, and chromatin-modifying complexes
and sequences in a wide variety of organisms [154]. ChIP-seq provides higher resolution, less
noise, and greater coverage than the array-based ChIP-chip method that was previous used,
and therefore, it has become the preferred tool for studying gene regulation and epigenetic
mechanisms. Two other NGS tools commonly used for epigenetic studies are Hi-C and ChIA-
PET that provide insights into the global 3D organization of eukaryote genomes [30]. Hi-C
utilizes NGS on cross-linked DNA fragments to identify the DNA regions such as promoters,
enhancers, and insulators that come together to mediate their regulatory activities. ChIA-PET
uses immunoprecipitation of crosslinked-interacting protein-DNA and paired-end sequenc‐
ing to reveal the interaction between enhancer and promoter regions located at intergenic
distances away from each other but either on the same (cis) or different (trans) chromosomes
[30]. de Wit and de Laat [155] provided an overview of the various derived chromosomal
conformation capture (3C) methods, including 4C (chromosome conformation capture-on-
chip) and 5C (chromosome conformation carbon copy) and their application in the study of
chromatin interactions. Two epigenomic databases on the Internet, the NIH Roadmap
Epigenomics Project and Blueprint (Table 3), catalogue the chemical modifications to the
genome and how they activate gene expression in human tissues and cell types.
8.4. Proteomics, metabolomics, and systeomics
Proteomics is the large-scale study of the structure, function, identification, and characteriza‐
tion of peptides and proteins [113, 156, 157]. This includes information on protein abundance,
variations and polymorphisms, modifications, and their interactions and networks in cellular
processes. As a first step, the sequence translation of open reading frames of genomes, exons,
and transcripts using a codon table and one or more bioinformatics tools is the simplest way
of constructing proteomic profiles from NGS data. However, this is not the only analytical
protocol used in the domain of proteomics, and protein specialists often employ a variety of
other hardware and software tools to build up an organism’s peptide and protein profiles.
Among these are the detection and analysis of proteins and their functions by two-dimensional
polyacrylamide gels, liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry,
affinity-tagged proteins, and yeast two-hybrid assays [156, 157]. A number of public databases
for proteomics and protein-protein interactions are available on the Internet such as ExPASy
and PRIDE (Table 3).
Metabolomics is the study of an organism’s total metabolic response to an environmental

stimulus or a genetic modification [113]. The metabolomics of organisms are drawn indirectly
from NGS data, mainly from the known functions of enzymes and proteins involved in
metabolic and biochemical pathways. Metabolomics data also provide biochemical and
physiological snapshots of processes that are obtained from cellular and tissue experimental
studies using various technologies of separation (gas chromatography, high-performance
liquid chromatography, and capillary electrophoresis) and detection (mass spectrophotome‐
try, NMR spectrometry, ion mobility, and thin-layer chromatography) [158]. Metabolomics is
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
an important part of functional genomics for determining the phenotypic effects of genetic
manipulations such as gene deletions, insertions, and mutations. Nutrigenomics is an arm of
metabolomics that links genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and microbio‐
mics together in an examination of the effects of nutrition and energy metabolism on gene
expression in relation to an organism’s genotype [113, 159]. The use of constraint-based
methods such as the Flux Balance Analysis to design models of metabolite flow in microbes
has connected ”omic” to phenotypes in the science of Fluxomics [160]. Some web-based
metabolomic resources include FAME, AromaDeg, Metabolomexpress, and MetaboAnalyst
(Table 3).
Systeomics is the integration of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and phenomics into a

single network system. It is a branch of biology that uses computational techniques to analyze
and model how the components of a biological system such as cells or organisms interact with
each other to produce the characteristics and behavior of that system [160–162]. Systeomics is
a biology-based interdisciplinary field applied to biomedical and biological scientific research
that focuses on complex interactions within biological systems using a holistic approach. For
example, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Genomic Science program uses microbial and plant
genomic data, high-throughput analytical technologies, and modeling and simulation to
develop a predictive understanding of biological systems behavior relevant to solving energy
and environmental challenges (http://doegenomestolife.org). The U.S. Department of Energy
Systems Biology Knowledgebase (KBase) is a software and data platform for systems biology
mechanisms (Table 3) to assist with the prediction and design of biological functions of
microbes and plants. KBase integrates data, tools, and their associated interfaces into one
unified, scalable environment to allow users to upload their own data for analysis, to build
models, and to share and publish their workflows and conclusions. Another example is the
Kyoto Encylopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), which is a database resource to integrate
high-level functions and utilities of biological systems from molecular-level information (Table
3). Other “omics” that contribute to the ”omic” lexicon and biology are epidemiomics [163],
physionomics [113], variomics [164], and phenomics [165–167]. In the case of phenomics, the
European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) provides accession numbers that refer to the
relationship between genomics and phenotype/traits, such as the physical and biochemical
traits of humans (Table 3). It integrates physical traits or phenotypes with genomics, tran‐
scriptomics, methylomics, proteomics, and metabolomics [166].
8.5. Metagenomics and microbiomes
Metagenomics, or beyond genomics, is the study of the total genomic content of a microbial
community that bridges the three domains of life, Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryotes [100, 114–
118, 168–179]. The total DNA and/or RNA is isolated from a microbial population without
prior cultivation, sequenced, and compared with previously known sequences to identify
known species or to discover previously unknown species. Some of the environments from
which microbial communities are isolated and studied include aquatic and terrestrial envi‐
ronments, host-associated ecosystems, and various human engineered systems such as those
involved with food, water, and waste production, agriculture, animal husbandry, and various
human and animal habitations [100, 115, 168, 169]. Hospitals are a worrying source of patho‐
genic microorganisms, especially those that develop resistance to commonly used medical
antibiotics [115, 168]. Thus, NGS is an important growing application for epidemiological
studies of various pathogens, such as mycobacteria, S. aureus, E. coli, cholera, influenza, HIV,
Ebola virus, etc. [169–171]. The Earth Microbiome Project (http://www.earthmicrobiome.org)
is an ambitious multidisciplinary attempt to analyze microbial communities across the globe
using approximately 500,000 reconstructed microbial genomes.
The earliest metagenomic studies targeted 16S rRNA genes to genotype and identify the
different species within the environment before the first NGS microbial studies using the Roche
pyrosequencing and Illumina platforms targeted mining sites and the surface waters of the
gulfs, seas, and oceans [114, 169]. Many big projects and consortia for sequencing metagenomes
have been launched in the past 10 years, such as the TerraGenome project for soils (Table 3)
and the Tara Oceans project on the microbiome, eukaryotic plankton, and viromes of the global
oceans [172–174].
Microbes colonize the human body (microbiome) in numbers that are estimated to outnumber
human genes and somatic cells by more than 100-fold [175]. These microbes (viruses, prokar‐
yotes, and eukaryotic microbes) occupy various anatomical habitats including gut, skin,
vagina, and oral mucosa and are believed to markedly influence human physiology, nutrition,
and health [175–177]. Advances in NGS and computing methods have enabled human
microbiome studies such as the MetaHit project and the Human Microbiome Project (HMP)
(Table 3). In May 2015, SRA that was established by NCBI in 2008 to store raw sequence data
from the NGS technologies had over 2,068 trillion open access nucleotides in its database to
massively outgrow GenBank, EMBL, and DDBJ for bacterial sequence storage. The genomic
sequences continue to accumulate in other databases as well [114], such as 47,083 prokaryotic
genomes projected for Genomes Online Database (GOLD) [178] and 152,927 metagenomes for
the MG-RAST server [179]. As of October 2014, the GOLD database contained 544 metage‐
nomics studies associated with 6726 metagenome samples, whereas MG-RAST held 150,039
metagenomic samples, of which 20,415 were publicly available (Table 3). Recently, Zelezniak
et al. [180] gathered and modeled NGS 16S rRNA sequence data to map interspecies metabolic
exchanges and resource competition based on the genomic potential encoded by the microbial
communities. They analyzed more than 1,297 communities and 261 species in soil, water, and
human gut samples and concluded that the interplay between competitive and cooperative
strategies for resources and the ability to exchange metabolites, such as amino acids and sugars,
shapes the composition of microbial communities.
8.6. Comparative genomics, phylogenomics, and the phylomes of life
Comparative genomics and phylogenomics via NGS and the phylome (complete collec‐
tion of all gene phylogenies in a genome) provide powerful applications for classifying and
understanding the differences and similarities of all life forms and for unraveling their
evolutionary histories [100, 116, 176, 181–186]. The three basic domains of life, Bacteria,
Archaea, and Eukarya, were first identified and classified phylogenetically on the basis of
ribosomal RNA sequences [181]. Although Bacteria and Archaea are both placed into the
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
kingdom of the Prokaryotes or Monera (lacking a membrane-bound nucleus, mitochon‐

dria, and chloroplasts but containing a cell wall), their separate rRNA sequence clusters
clearly divided them into distinct domains [181]. The Eukarya (eukaryotes) have been
subdivided into four basic kingdoms, Protista, Fungi (Mycota), Plantae (Metaphyta), and
Animalia (Metazoa) [182]. However, on the basis of metagenomic and phylogenomic studies
and NGS data, the classifications and nomenclatures of eukaryotes continue to be revised
and organized into other supergroups such as Amoebozoa, Opsthokonta, Ecavata, Archae‐
plastida (Plantae), SAR (Stra/Alveo/Rhizaria), and Incertae sedis [183, 184]. On the other
hand, because viruses do not have rRNA genes, they have missed out on a life-domain
classification [185, 186]. There is still a strong debate about whether or not viruses without
rRNA genes should be classified as a separate life form (a fourth domain) or simply be
viewed as exogenous parasites, infectious agents, and endogenous mobile elements that are
dependent on and exist within the life forms of the three defined domains [185, 186]. Viruses
impact greatly on all life forms, so they are a major interest for NGS applications and
phylogenomics [34, 114, 174, 187–189], especially emerging viruses such as dengue, Ebola,
Chikungunya, MERS, lyssavirus, and norovirus (http://viralzone.expasy.org), which are of
a great concern to human health [114, 171, 189].
NGS, phylogenomics, and taxonomy profiling during the past decade has greatly expand‐
ed our knowledge of the diversity of bacterial genomes from the same and different species
[116, 190], with the discovery of many DNA sequence repeats and transposons that
contribute to at least 10% of the genome and play an important role in immunity [100, 191].
Archaea and thermophiles have a large proportion of their genomes consisting of defense
genes often localized in genomic islands as a consequence of horizontal gene transfers [191,
192]. For example, the family of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats
(CRISPRs) and the CRISPR-associated proteins in the CRISPR-Associated System (CAS) that
have an important role in the host’s adaptive immunity to pathogens and as responders to
environmental stress [192–194] have been translocated between different prokaryote strains
and species [191, 192]. CAS includes distinct gene families of 50 or more that show strong
evidence of extensive plasticity and horizontal gene transfer to protect prokaryote cells
against the replication of phage and plasmids that integrate into the CRISPR locus [193–
195]. Moreover, the CRISPR/CAS systems have been developed as an “in vitro” genetic
engineering tool to be transfected into the cells of various organisms to manipulate their
genes [196], including the foreign defense system introduced into human cells against HIV-1
infection [197]. Other bacterial defense systems that have been studied or discovered by
NGS include the toxin/anti-toxin, antigen, novel restriction-modification, and DNA
phosphorathioation systems as well as those involved with infection-induced dormancy or
programmed cell death [192]. Genomic sequencing also has revealed new bacterial
microcompartments, protein structures, or organelles that are used in metabolic pathways
[198], such as those involved in carbon fixation and metabolism of amino alcohols, ethanol,
rhamnose, and fucose [199]. Bacterial genomes also provide sequences for phylogenetic and
gene comparisons, taxonomic classification, transcriptomics, and methylomics and for the
assessment of sequence diversity and variants for a better understanding of gene func‐
tions [100]. Although the classical operon structure predominates in bacteria and archaea,
a variety of other transcription unit architectures have been elucidated [100]. More than
4,661 transcription units have been described with an average of 1.7 promoters per operon,
and transcription factor binding sites have been determined for virtually all the transcrip‐
tion factors in E. coli [100]. DNA methylation was first discovered in bacterial restriction-
modification systems with diverse functions in addition to cellular defense [200], and it is
now seen as an evolutionarily conserved form of transcriptional repression and an ancestral
form of defense against foreign DNA molecules and transposons and other mobile elements
in all life forms [201].
Phylogenomics has been used to reevaluate the evolutionary affiliation between archaea
and eukaryotes and to infer that the nuclear lineage in eukaryotes emerged from the
archaeal radiation and most probably from the archaeal TACK superphylum [202]. Recently,
Spang et al. [203] sequenced uncultivated metagenomes from a deep-sea vent and discov‐
ered novel archaeal genomes in the new phylum that they named ”Lokiarchaeota.” These
novel archaea contain homologues of many eukaryotic proteins that function in the
endomembrane system and in phagocytosis, including actin and related proteins, and Ras
superfamily GTPases, suggesting that this newly discovered phylum is the missing link in
eukaryogenesis. Although eukaryotes possess the membrane-enclosed mitochondrial
organelle and prokaryotes do not, the eukaryotic mitochondria are believed to have evolved
from a bacterial system, probably by endosymbiosis [204] involving an ancestor within the
bacterial phylum Alphaproteobacteria [205]. Although mitochondrial phylogenomics
suggests a monophyletic origin and assemblage, it is now evident that the mitochondria
are genetic chimeras and functional mosaics with the bulk of the mitochondrial proteome
originating during eukaryote evolution outside the Alphaproteobacteria and other bacteri‐
al phyla. It seems that the mitochondrial genome has expanded and contracted in various
lineages during evolution with much of the original mitochondrial genetic information
transferred to the nucleus [205]. Eukaryotic diploid cells appear to have evolved 2 billion
years after haploid prokaryotes, and their evolution from proto-eukaryotic cells, such as
the multinucleated Giardia organism [206], seems to have involved chromosomal crossing
over from mitotic recombination to meiosis and to sexual reproduction where a set of
chromosomes is inherited from each parent [207]. The genomes of diploid eukaryotes are
usually larger than those in haploid prokaryotes probably because greater information
complexity is needed by multicellular organisms to regulate and coordinate the multiple
stages of their life cycles with the added requirement for more molecular regulatory systems
to communicate and interact between multiple tissues and organs [206].
Eukaryotic genomes vary markedly in size and gene number and appear to be variable in
their susceptibility to polyploidy (a doubling of the diploid sets of chromosomes), redundan‐
cy, duplication, and the persistent accumulation of interspersed repeats and mobile elements
[208–210]. For example, the genomes of plants can range from the simplest like Ostreococ‐
cus tauri with a 12.6 Mb genome, containing less than 8,000 genes and minimal genome
duplication [211], to the highly complex such as the canopy and pale-petal flowering plant
Paris japonica, with a 150 Gb genome and eight sets of chromosomes derived by allopolyploi‐
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
dy and hybridization of four species [212]. The genomic size of Paris japonica, which has
still to be fully sequenced, is 50 times larger than the human genome and extends the range
of genome sizes to 2,400-fold across angiosperms and 66,000-fold across eukaryotes [212].
Genome duplication and polyploidy, both recent and ancient, have contributed to the
considerable genomic complexity in eukaryotes, particularly in plants, amoeba, fungi, and
vertebrates [208–223]. Following ancient polyploidization, most duplicated genes are deleted
by intrachromosomal recombination, a process referred to as fractionation, and any
remaining evidence for the polyploidy event is not easy to find by phylogenomic analy‐
sis [214]. Nevertheless, a phylogenomic comparison of gene duplications in a four-way
comparison of paralogous regions in tunicate, fish, mouse, and human provided unmistak‐
able evidence of two distinct genome duplication events (the 2R event) early in verte‐
brate evolution and before the divergence of fish and mammalian lineages [215], as was
proposed by Ohno in 1970 [216]. Interestingly, polyploidy also can occur in humans during
normal development and cancer [208, 209]. Fetal polyploidy in the form of triploidy (69,XXX
chromosomes) and tetraploidy (92,XXXX chromosomes) is a rare and lethal event, result‐
ing in spontaneous abortions or brief postpartum survival times [208], whereas polyploi‐
dy is common in stressed tissues and cells and in tumor development [208, 209]. On the
other hand, comparative genomic studies have revealed that polyploidy is common in the
evolutionary history of many different flowering plants [208, 214], for example, between
different species of the allopolyploid tobacco plants, Nicotiana section Repandae [217]. In
comparing the allotetraploid genomes of Nicotiana repanda and Nicotiana nudicaulis, it was
assessed that the loss of low-copy sequences along with the loss of duplicate copies of genes
and upstream regulators reflects genome diploidization, whereas genome size divergence
between the allopolyploids is manifested through differential accumulation and/or deletion
of high-copy-number sequences and transposable elements [217]. Diploidization and
genome size change in Nicotiana allopolyploids is associated with differential dynamics of
low- and high-copy sequences [218]. The induction of polyploidy is a common technique
to overcome the sterility of a hybrid species during plant breeding; therefore, many
agriculturally important plants such as the genus Brassica are polyploids [219-221]. Wheat,
after millennia of hybridization and modification by humans, has strains that are diploid
(2 sets of chromosomes), tetraploid (4 sets of chromosomes), and hexaploid (6 sets of
chromosomes) [222, 223], whereas the invasive weed Spartina anglica has up to 12 sets of
chromosomes [224].
A recent comparative genomic study has revealed how genomes change with speciation in an
examination of genomes from five cichlid fish species, an ancestral lineage from the Nile, and
four species from the East Africa lakes, Tanganyika, Malawi, and Victoria [225]. Compared to
the ancestral Nile lineage, the East African cichlid genomes had many alterations in regulatory
elements, accelerated evolution of protein-coding elements in genes for pigmentation, an
excess of gene duplications, and other distinct features that affect gene expression associated
with transposable element insertions and novel microRNA. Each species contains a reservoir
of mutations different from the other species [225]. Much of the diversity between species
evolves in a nonparallel manner often rapidly due to sexual selection and genetic conflicts
between males and females and between different regions of the genome at a regulatory level
rather than by the slower and weaker forces of classical natural selection [226].
Most genomes range between newly derived genes and the ultraconserved or the essential
core coding and noncoding genes [100, 227, 228]. Comparative genomics has resulted in the
discovery of ultraconserved noncoding elements (UCNE) across different phyla, starting with
481-long segments (>200 bp) that are 100% conserved between orthologous regions of the
human, rat, and mouse genomes and 95% to 99% conserved in chicken and dog genomes [229].
A more recent comparison of 28 vertebrate genomes identified millions of additional con‐
served elements with distinct types of functional elements including regulatory motifs present
in the promoters and untranslated regions of coregulated genes, insulators that constrain
domains of gene expression, and conserved secondary structures in RNAs and in develop‐
mental regulators [230]. A webpage at http://ultraconserved.org provides study protocols,
computer software, and references dedicated to ultraconserved elements [229]. Also, there are
at least two databases for the conserved noncoding elements and the genomic regulatory
blocks (Table 3), the UCNEbase for human and chicken [231], and the UCbase 2.0 for the 481
UCNE that were longer than 200 bp and that were discovered in the genomes of mammals
[229]. The UCNEbase suggests that the evolution of species depends more on innovation and
change in regulatory sequences than in proteins [231]. Indeed, there are essential genes that
are indispensable for the survival of an organism and therefore are considered a foundation
of life. The database of essential genes (DEG) (Table 3) catalogues known essential genomic
elements, such as protein-coding genes and noncoding RNAs, within the bacteria, archaea,
and eukaryotes that constitute a minimal genome and are useful for annotating newly
sequenced genomes [232].
Phylomes provide the combined analysis of genome-wide collections of phylogenetic trees to
aid in the inference of orthological and paralogical relationships and the detection of evolu‐
tionary events such as whole-genome duplication (polyploidization), gene family expansion
and contraction, horizontal gene transfer, recombination, inversion, and incomplete lineage
sorting [233, 234]. The online PhylomeDB v4 database was created as a phylogenomic reposi‐
tory and is useful for preliminary phylogenetic data analysis of genomes of interest from
various phyla as well as for annotating newly derived genomic sequences [234]. As an example,
Fig. 1 shows the PhylomeDB analysis of the duplications of the RLTPR gene, a gene that was
first discovered in humans in 2004 [235]. The PhylomeDB analysis shows that the RLTPR gene
has two paralogs, LRRC16B and LRRC16, which were generated by two separate duplication
events at least prior to the divergence of mice and humans (Fig. 1). The functions of RLTPR
are not well characterized, but its distinct functional domains suggest that it may multitask in
protein-protein interactions, as recently demonstrated in the development of regulatory T cells
in mice [236]. The analytical approach to find orthologous and paralogous relationships with
maximum genomic coverage for the RLTPR gene is both gene-centric and genome-wide in
PhylomeDB. Also of particular interest are the well-conserved genomic mechanisms of innate
immunity, such as Apolipoprotein B Editing Catalytic subunit proteins 3 (APOBEC3s) in
mammals that mutate and inactivate viral genomes [237]. Other phylogenetic databases that
complement PhylomeDB in a comparative analysis are Ensembl Compara GeneTrees,
TreeFam, PANTHER, PhyloFacts FATCAT, and the HOGENOM database (Table 3).
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
Figure 1. RLTPR gene tree shows the RLTPR gene orthologs and paralogs in 10 vertebrate species. The human gene
RLTPR (NCBI Gene ID: 146206), first reported in 2004 [235], was used as the search query for the Phylome tree at
http://phylomedb.org with the phylome data settings of AS seed in (Qf0) mouse phylome (2) and JTT (lk:-27586.1). The
tree shows the speciation events (blue squares) and three duplication events (red squares) at the nodes with the first
duplication event arising early in vertebrate evolution before the divergence of fish and mammalian lineages [215].
8.7. Mobilomics and Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)
The science of mobile genetic elements (mobilomics) developed long before the advent of
genomics and NGS [238]. The 1983 Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock first reported the
existence of mobile elements as jumping genes in maize in the late 1940s [239]. The discovery
of new classes and families of DNA transposons and autonomous and nonautonomous
retrotransposons continued slowly for the next five decades until the first online repeat
element screening webserver CENSOR and database REPBASE (Table 3) was established by
Jerzy Jurka and his colleagues between 1992 and 1996 [240, 241]. Since then, RepeatMasker
(Table 3) and other tools such as Mobster [242], Red [243], and Visual TE [244] have followed
on to help define the mobilome, the totality of mobile genetic elements in a particular genome.
A list and description of some of the families, types, and classes of transposons and retro‐
transposons in prokaryotes and eukaryotes can be found in the following reviews [238, 245–
251]. A recent survey of repeats and mobile elements that affect genomic stability has eluci‐
dated how some bacteria can control the mobilome through postsegregation killing systems
[192–195, 247]. Different classes of TEs are found in the genomes of different eukaryotes that
contribute to at least 50% of the human genome [237] and up to 90% of the maize genome [252].
In humans, there are solitary Long Terminal Repeats (LTR) and LTR retrotransposons
(endogenous retroviruses) that are characterized by the presence of LTR at both ends; Long
Interspersed Nuclear Elements (LINEs) like L1 that represent families of non-LTR TEs about
6 kb in length and encode two proteins, a nucleic acid chaperone, and a reverse transcriptase/
nuclease for retrotransposition; Nonautomomous Miniature Inverted-Repeat Transposable
Elements (MITEs); Mammalian-wide Interspersed Repeats (MIRs), an ancient family of tRNA-
derived SINEs exapted as enhancers and regulatory sequences; and Short Interspersed Nuclear
Elements (SINEs) like Alu that are usually less than 300 bp and need a helper transposon
element like L1 for transposition [245]. Most ERVs, SINEs, and LINEs in the human genome
are now remnants of past insertions and are no longer capable of actively ”jumping” like
functional TEs [238, 245, 248]. Indeed, many of the TE ancient relics have undergone exaptation
and developed new functions, such as transcript repeat elements, within regulatory gene
networks to generate lineage-specific adaptation [145, 249].
The importance of widespread HGT in creating genomic diversity in microbes has been
highlighted by the many comparative genomic studies using metagenome data [191].
Comparative genomic analysis of different strains of E. coli revealed that up to 30% of genes
in pathogenic strains were acquired by HGT often creating duplication events and
modifying metabolic networks by adding operons that encode two or more enzymes [253].
Comparative genomics of photosynthetic prokaryotes revealed that they have evolved as
complex mosaics via multiple HGT events [254]. Similarly, photosynthetic gene clusters and
gene clusters that encode various toxins, resistance genes, metabolic genes, and compo‐
nents of secretion systems appear to be the products of HGT [247, 253–255]. Indeed, many
HGT events probably were mediated by genomic mobile elements, such as bacteriophag‐
es, plasmids, viruses, transposable elements, and toxin/antitoxin systems that are persis‐
tent in all life forms [191, 228, 246, 255, 256].
Before the new millennium, transposons and repeat elements were largely viewed as junk and
as parasites that created unnecessary burden on the genome. Comparative genomics and
online databases dedicated to transposons and repeat elements such as SINES, LINES, and
ERVs, however, began to change this picture in the 1990s, and it soon became evident that
these elements were the drivers of evolutionary innovation. Many integrated transposons
mutate with time to interact with the host transcriptional machinery and therefore provide a
useful substrate for evolution of novel regulatory elements [145, 228, 255–258]. Moreover, some
of the ancient integrated retrotransposons appear to have been involved in advantageous
segmental genomic duplications such as in the major histocompatibility complex region [259–
261], and others have dispersed regulatory controls to provide coordinated regulation across
the genome [257, 258].
8.8. Agrigenomics
Agrigenomics or agricultural genomics can be defined as the research and development

activities that translate NGS and genomics technology into a better understanding of plant
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
biology and advancing crop improvements. During the past decade, NGS had an enormous
impact on developing fundamental genome resources to directly address many of today’s
concerns in agriculture and agronomics. Since the publication in 2000 of the first plant genome,
Arabidopsis thaliana, 54 new plant genomes were published by 2013 [221] followed by at least
another 6 plant genomes including the hexaploid bread wheat genome [223]. In reviewing the
first 55 plant genomes, Michael and Jackson [221] concluded that, although these genomes
have provided a glimpse at the gene number, types, and numbers of repeats and genomic
growth, contraction, and rearrangement, we are only just at the beginning of defining the
functional aspects of plant genomes ”and various other ‘omics’ data layered on genomes.”
8.9. Humanomics, personomics, and health
The accumulation of knowledge on the human genome and its genetic and molecular processes
(humanomics) has amplified considerably since the first draft assembly was published in 2001
[262]. The first human hybrid genome took about 15 years to sequence and assemble, and when
released to the public, it covered 90% of the euchromatic genome, contained about 250,000
gaps, and had many errors in the nucleotide sequence [43, 44]. Ten years after the publication
of the first human draft sequence, six more human genome sequences were completed with a
much greater coverage and accuracy, enabling more informative comparisons to be made
between them [7, 8, 79]. Studies by the 1000 Genomes Project [10], the Personal Genome Project
[263], the HapMap Consortium [264], and the Pan-Asian Single Nucleotide Polymorphism
Project [265] revealed the enormous sequence diversity that exists between individuals. Since
then, 225 Ethiopian and Egyptian genomes were compared to reconstruct their population
history out of Africa [266], 911 genomes from 10 populations of African, East Asian, and
European ancestries were sequenced to elucidate novel patterns and signatures of genetic
differentiation [267], and whole-exome sequences from 951 genomes of a ClinSeq cohort were
compared to discover new loss-of-function mutations [268]. Today, there are many 1000
human genome projects, and WGS of the human genome for personalized medicine (per‐
sonomics) is already a reality for 2,638 Icelanders [9] and for some others [269, 270] of the 7.3
billion individuals currently populating the globe (http://www.worldometers.info/world-
population).
Veeramah and Hammer [271] recently reviewed the usefulness of NGS to sequence ancient
DNA samples for phylogenetic and evolutionary studies and for the reconstruction of human
population history. Some of these NGS studies have helped to refine the demographic histories
of human evolution. These studies include those of the ancient DNA of extinct hominins
(Neanderthals, Denisovans) and ancient modern humans such as 7,000-year-old Mesolithic
hunter-gathers in northwestern Spain, Neolithic and post-Neolithic (5,300- to 4,000-year-old)
hunter-gathers and farmers in Scandinavia, a 4,000-year-old Paleo-Eskimo from southern
Greenland, and a 24,000- and 17,000-year-old South-Central Siberian [271]. NGS of ancient
nonhuman genomes such as those of pathogens, parasites, and domesticated animals and
plants also can provide new information about human history in regard to life styles, health,
and the spread of agriculture [272].
NGS has allowed a detailed analysis of single nucleotide variants (SNVs), structural variants
(SV), and methylations in coding and noncoding regions and to assess their role in human
disease [9, 14, 15, 19, 22, 25, 29, 30, 123, 125–127, 144, 148, 151, 152]. The establishment of the
International HapMap Project in 2003 (Table 3) to develop a “hapmap” of human haplotype
genomes from samples of large populations was an important initiative to find genes and
genomic variations (SNP and CNV frequencies, genotypes, and phased haplotypes) that affect
health and disease [264]. More than 97 million validated SNPs (dbSNP) have been discovered
from human genome sequencing projects and many of the variants have been linked to a range
of medical and phenotypic conditions and catalogued at dbGAP (Table 3), the database of
genotype and phenotype [273]. In July 2015, dbGAP had links to 592 disease and phenotype
studies and 3,711 data sets. In addition to SNV, small and large SVs that are duplicated, deleted,
or rearranged relative to the reference sequences and individuals have been identified in NGS
studies and associated with various diseases [9, 30, 127]. NGS has been used to diagnose rare
Mendelian diseases and genetically heterogeneous complex disorders, such as X-linked
intellectual disability, congenital disorders, cancer genome heterogeneity, and fetal aneuploi‐
dy [13, 15, 123, 125, 208, 209, 274, 275]. The impact of NGS on the diagnosis of rare genetic
diseases is evidenced by the growth of the genes and OMIM database [49, 276] that has doubled
in data since 2007 [274]. However, it should be noted that NGS does not always reveal causative
mutations but instead may provide a list of possible candidates. Many detected SNPs, SNVs,
and SV have not been associated to disease or phenotype and many diseases still await a genetic
or genomic cause. NGS in human studies must be used with caution because of the significant
levels of false-positive and false-negative rates in sequencing errors and amplification biases.
Soon et al. [30] listed and reviewed the various NGS methods employed in the ENCODE project
to annotate and analyze the transcriptome and map elements and identify the methylation
patterns of the whole human genome. The information in ENCODE and other databases such
as GTEx, FANTOM, NIH ROADMAP, and BLUEPRINT (Table 3) has enabled researchers to
map genetic variants to gene regulatory regions and assess indirect links to disease. The
Regulome DB based on the accumulation of nongenic functional regulatory regions obtained
from ENCODE is a useful resource for the evaluation of polymorphisms of regulatory regions
[276]. Although disease-associated SNPs obtained from GWAS studies may point to gene
coding regions, they actually might reside in regulatory sites of downstream genes that are in
linkage disequilibrium with the reported SNPs [262]. RNA-seq and NGS has confirmed that
98% of the human genome is transcribed from noncoding genomic regions, that only about
2% of the human genome codes for peptides and proteins with about 20,000 distinct protein-
coding genes, and that alternative splicing seems to occur for 90% of protein-coding genes to
yield many more different types of proteins than genes [134, 135, 151, 152]. The vast majority
of the human genome is not functionless ”junk DNA” as previously thought [262], but rather,
it can be viewed as DNA/RNA ”dark matter” expressing hundreds to millions of transcribed
short and long noncoding RNA molecules that have important regulatory roles in transcrip‐
tion, translation, transport, metabolism, and innate immunity [133]. Some of these are the
interspersed retroelements such as Alu and L1 and endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) that have
evolved before and during primate history to function as regulators of transcription and
translation [24, 25, 142, 145, 257, 258].
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
NGS has especially revolutionized the field of cancer genomes revealing mutations, amplifi‐
cations, deletions, translocations, and dysregulation of noncoding and coding RNAs to
provide a better understanding of the complex genetics and loss of regulation in cancer [15,
25, 29, 208, 209, 275]. For example, paired end sequencing showed that about half of structural
rearrangements in breast cancer genomes were fusion transcripts resulting from the rear‐
rangements of segmental tandem duplications involving multiple genes [277]. Similarly, other
cancer types were found to be dominated by duplications, translocations, structural variations,
and complex rearrangements called ”chromothripsis” that involve chromosomal rearrange‐
ments as single events confined to genomic regions in one or a few chromosomes [278]. NGS
also has been applied to circulating tumor cells isolated from the body fluids (blood, urine,
sputum, saliva, and stools) [30, 274]. A genomic landscape and a catalogue of somatic muta‐
tions in cancer are provided on the Internet at COSMIC (Table 3, [275]). Thus, NGS potentially
provides cancer patients with opportunities for personalized diagnosis and optimized
therapeutic treatment [279, 280].
The integration of NGS data obtained from whole genome, exome, transcriptome, and
methylome to build up individual genomic profiles is a growing reality in human health care.
Recently, Chen et al. [269] developed ”integrated personal omic profiling” in an individual by
sequencing their genome at high accuracy and profiling their transcriptome, metabolome, and
proteome over a 14-month period. In the study, they tracked the emergence of type 2 diabetes
and assessed the individual’s genetic make-up and disease risks. Others have performed
similar studies demonstrating that monitoring the longitudinal trends and changes within
individuals is an important future protocol for the diagnosis, management, and treatment of
disease [9, 81, 270]. The challenges for ”person omics,” however, remain formidable at many
levels, not least the time, cost, and effort required to gather, process, and interpret the data
[101]. The cost benefits of NGS for personomics have still to be assessed with many economic,
securities, personal, familial, social, and ethical issues to be considered and resolved.
9. Futuromics
The first-generation sequencing technologies and the pioneering computing and bioinformat‐
ics tools produced the initial sequencing data and information within a framework of structural
and functional genomics in readiness for the following NGS developments. NGS provides
substantially cheaper, friendlier, and more flexible high-throughput sequencing options with
a quantum leap towards the generation of much more data on genomics, transcriptomics, and
methylomics that translate more productively into proteomics, metabolomics, and systeomics.
This major progression towards a more comprehensive characterization of genomes, epige‐
nomes, and transcriptomes of humans and other species provides even more data as a proxy
to probe diverse molecular interactions in the era of ”omics” in many fields of biology,
industry, and health care. A few years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute produced a report
predicting that NGS and genomics, including the sequencing of a million human genomes,
would become an economically and socially disruptive technology as well as an annual trillion
dollar industry by 2025 [281]. The authors assessed that next-generation genomics would affect
many high impact areas of molecular biology and bioindustry such as improving genetic
engineering tools to custom build organisms, genetically engineer biofuels, modify crops to
improve farming practices and food stocks, and develop drugs to treat cancers and other
diseases. Although these technologies promise huge benefits, they also come with social,
ethical, and regulatory risks in regard to privacy and security of personal genetic information,
the dangerous effects of modified organisms on the environment, the spectre of bioterrorism,
eugenics, and concerns about the ownership and commercialization of genomic information.
The application of prenatal genome sequencing for genetic screening already points to the
potential of producing genetically modified babies with desired traits. Much will need to be
done to educate and inform regulators and society about the risks and benefits when formu‐
lating the regulatory policies about the advances and applications of these next-generation
technologies.
Today, NGS is the science of biological information systems and ”Big Data,”, but many
challenges still remain in regard to NGS data acquisition, storage, analysis, integration, and
interpretation [282, 283]. Future advancements will undoubtedly rely on new technologies and
large-scale collaborative efforts from multidisciplinary and international teams to continue
generating comprehensive, high-throughput data production and analysis. The availability of
economically friendlier bench-top sequencers and third-generation sequencing tools will allow
smaller laboratories and individual scientists to participate in the genomics revolution and
contribute new knowledge to the different fields of structural and functional genomics in the
life sciences. The authors of the following chapters in this book present additional examples,
more detailed information, and a broader view of the methods and many advances, applica‐
tions, and challenges of NGS that were either missed or not covered adequately in this opening
chapter, particularly in regard to the RNA sequencing and transcriptome methods and data
that provide us with a better understanding of functional genomics in microorganisms, plants,
animals, and humans. Te volo, bonam lectionem.
Author details
Jerzy K. Kulski1,2*
Address all correspondence to: kulski@me.com
1 Department of Molecular Life Science, Division of Basic Medical Science and Molecular
Medicine, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Japan
2 Centre for Forensic Science, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA,
Australia
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
References
[1] Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson AR: DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibi‐
tors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1977;74:5463–7. PMCID: PMC431765
[2] Mardis ER: Next-generation DNA sequencing methods. Annu Rev Genomics Hum
Genet. 2008;9:387–402. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164359
[3] Mardis ER: A decade’s perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature.

2011;470:198–203. DOI: 10.1038/nature09796
[4] Metzker ML: Sequencing technologies — The next generation. Nat Rev Genet.
2010;11:31–46. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2626
[5] Thompson JF, Milos PM: The properties and applications of single-molecule DNA se‐
quencing. Genome Biol. 2011;12:217. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-2-217
[6] Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, et al: Genome sequencing in microfabricated

high-density picolitre reactors. Nature. 2005;437:376–80. PMID: 16056220
[7] Levy S, Sutton G, Ng PC, et al: The diploid genome sequence of an individual hu‐
man. PLoS Biol. 2007;5:e254. PMID: 17803354
[8] Wheeler DA, Srinivasan M, Egholm M, et al: The complete genome of an individual
by massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nature. 2008;452:872–6. DOI: 10.1038/
nature06884
[9] Gudbjartsson DF, Helgason H, Gudjonsson SA, et al: Large-scale whole-genome se‐
quencing of the Icelandic population. Nat Genet. 2015;47:435–44. DOI: 10.1038/ng.
3247
[10] The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium: An integrated map of genetic variation from
1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012;491:56–65. DOI: 10.1038/nature11632
[11] Lam HY, Clark MJ, Chen R, et al: Performance comparison of whole-genome se‐
quencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:78–83. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2065
[12] Wang Z, Gerstein M, Snyder M: RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics.

Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:57–63. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2484
[13] Rabbini B, Tekin M, Mahdieh N: The promise of whole-exome sequencing in medical

genetics. J Hum Genet. 2014;59:5–15. DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2013.114
[14] Leo VC, Morgan NV, Bern D, et al: Use of next-generation sequencing and candidate
gene analysis to identify underlying defects in patients with inherited platelet func‐
tion disorders. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13:643–50. DOI: 10.1111/jth.12836
[15] Mardis ER, Wilson RK: Cancer genome sequencing: A review. Hum Mol Genet.
2009;18(R2):R163–8. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddp396
[16] Kulski JK, Suzuki S, Ozaki Y, Mitsunaga S, Inoko H, Shiina T: Phase HLA genotyp‐
ing by next generation sequencing — A comparison between two massively parallel
sequencing bench-top systems, the Roche GS Junior and Ion Torrent PGM. In: Xi Y,
editor. HLA and Associated Important Diseases. Croatia: Intech; 2014. p. 141–81.
[17] Pelizzola M, Ecker JR: The DNA methylome. FEBS Lett. 2011;585:1994–2000. DOI:
10.1016/j.febslet.2010.10.061
[18] Ozsolak F, Milos PM: RNA sequencing: Advances, challenges and opportunities. Nat
Rev Genet. 2011;12:87–98. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2934
[19] Wang K, Kim C, Bradfield J, et al: Whole-genome DNA/RNA sequencing identifies

truncating mutations in RBCK1 in a novel Mendelian disease with neuromuscular
and cardiac involvement. Genome Med. 2013;5:67. DOI: 10.1186/gm471
[20] Li S, Tighe SW, Nicolet CM, et al: Multi-platform and cross-methodological reprodu‐
cibility of transcriptome profiling by RNA-seq in the ABRF next generation sequenc‐
ing study. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:915–25. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2972
[21] Kulski JK, Kenworthy W, Bellgard M, et al: Gene expression profiling of Japanese
psoriatic skin reveals an increased activity in molecular stress and immune response
signals. J Mol Med (Berl). 2005;83:964–75. PMID: 16283139
[22] Meynert AM, Ansari M, FitzPatrick D, Taylor MS: Variant detection sensitivity and
biases in whole genome and exome sequencing. BMC Bioinform. 2014;15:247. DOI:
10.1186/1471-2105-15-247
[23] Chang G, Gao S, Hou X, et al: High-throughput sequencing reveals the disruption of
methylation of imprinted gene in induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Res.
2014;24:293–306. DOI: 10.1038/cr.2013.173
[24] Ekram MB, Kim J: High-Throughput Targeted Repeat Element Bisulfite Sequencing
(HT-TREBS): Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of IAP LTR retrotransposon.
PLoS One. 2014;9:e101683. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101683
[25] Bakshi A, Ekram MB, Kim J: Locus-specific DNA methylation analysis of retrotrans‐
posons in ES, somatic and cancer cells using high-throughput targeted repeat ele‐
ment bisulphite sequencing. Genomics Data. 2015;3:87–9. PMID: 25554740
[26] Corley MJ, Zhang W, Zheng X, Lum-Jones A, Maunakea AK: Semiconductor-based

sequencing of genome-wide DNA methylation states. Epigenetics. 2015;10:2:153–66.
DOI: 10.1080/15592294.2014.1003747
[27] Farlik M, Sheffield NC, Nuzzo A, et al: Single-cell DNA methylome sequencing and
bioinformatics inference of epi-genomic cell-state dynamics. Cell Rep. 2015;10:1386–
97. DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.02.001
[28] Hirst M: Epigenomics: Sequencing the methylome. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;973:39–
54. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-281-0_3
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[29] Li Y, Zhang Y, Li S, et al: Genome-wide DNA methylome analysis reveals epigeneti‐

cally dysregulated non-coding RNAs in human breast cancer. Sci Rep. 2015;5:8790.
DOI: 10.1038/srep08790
[30] Soon WW, Hariharan M, Snyder MP: High-throughput sequencing for biology and
medicine. Mol Syst Biol. 2013;9:640. DOI: 10.1038/msb.2012.61.
[31] Watson JD, Crick FH: Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyri‐
bose nucleic acid. Nature. 1953;171:737–8. PMID: 13054692
[32] Holley RW, Apgar J, Everett GA, et al: Structure of a ribonucleic acid. Science.
1965;147:1462–5. PMID: 5898068
[33] RajBhandary UL, Kohrer C: Early days of tRNA research: Discovery, function, purifi‐
cation and sequence analysis. J BioSci. 2006;31:439–51. PMID: 17206064
[34] Barba M, Czosnek H, Hadidi A: Historic perspective, development and applications

of next-generation sequencing in plant virology. Viruses. 2014;6:106–36. DOI:
10.3390/v6010106
[35] Franca LTC, Carrilho E, Kist TBL: A review of DNA sequencing techniques. Q Rev
Biophys. 2002:35:169–200. DOI: 10.1017/S0033583502003797
[36] Guzvic M: The history of DNA sequencing. J Med Biochem. 2013;32:301–12. DOI:
10.2478/jomb-2014-0004
[37] Maxam AM, Gilbert W: A new method for sequencing DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 1977;74(2):560–4. PMID: 265521
[38] Smith LM, Sanders JZ, Kaiser RJ, et al: Fluorescence detection in automated DNA se‐
quence analysis. Nature. 1986;321:674–9. PMID: 3713851
[39] Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, et al: Enzymatic amplification of beta-globin genomic
sequences and restriction site analysis for diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. Science.
1985;230:1350–4. PMID: 2999980
[40] Temin HM, Mizutani S: RNA-dependent DNA polymerase in virions of Rous sarco‐
ma virus. Nature. 1970;226:1211–3. DOI: 10.1038/2261211a0
[41] Baltimore D: Viral RNA-dependent DNA polymerase: RNA-dependent DNA poly‐

merase in virions of RNA tumour viruses. Nature. 1970;226:1209–11. PMID: 4316300
[42] Adams MD, Kelley JM, Gocayne JD, et al: Complementary DNA sequencing: Ex‐
pressed sequence tags and human genome project. Science. 1991;252:1651–6. DOI:
10.1126/science.2047873
[43] International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium: Initial sequencing and analy‐
sis of the human genome. Nature. 2001;409:860−921. PMID: 11237011
[44] Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al: The sequence of the human genome. Sci‐
ence. 2001;291:1304–51. PMID: 11181995
[45] Fleischmann RD, Adams MD, White O, et al: Whole-genome random sequencing
and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science. 1995;269:496–512. PMID: 7542800
[46] Fraser CM, Gocayne JD, White O, et al: The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma
genitalium. Science. 1995;270:397–404. PMID: 7569993
[47] Sutton GG, White O, Adams MD, Kerlavage AR: TIGR assembler: A new tool for as‐
sembling large shotgun sequencing projects. Genome Sci Technol. 1995;1:9–19.
[48] Stein L: Genome annotation. From sequence to biology. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:493–
503. PMID: 11433356
[49] Peltonen L, McKusick VA: Dissecting human disease in the postgenomic era. Science.
2001;291:1224–9. PMID: 11233446
[50] Kiechle FL, Zhang X: The postgenomic era. Implications for the clinical laboratory.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:255–62. PMID: 11860296
[51] Zhu T: Global analysis of gene expression using GeneChip microarrays. Curr Opin
Plant Biol. 2003;6:418–25. PMID: 12972041
[52] Lenoir T, Giannella E: Case study. The emergence and diffusion of DNA microarray
technology. J Biomed Discov Collab. 2006;1:11. DOI: 10.1186/1747-5333-1-11
[53] Wetterstrand K: DNA Sequencing Costs: Data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing
Program (GSP) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts
[Accessed: 2015-07-13].
[54] Liu L, Li Y, Li S, et al: Comparison of next-generation sequencing systems. J Biomed
Biotechnol. 2012;2012:251364. DOI: 10.1155/2012/251364
[55] Head SR, Komori HK, LaMere SA, et al: Library construction for next-generation se‐
quencing: Overviews and challenges. BioTech. 2014;56:61–77. DOI:
10.2144/000114133
[56] Hart C, Lipson D, Ozsolak F, et al: Single-molecule sequencing: sequence methods to

enable accurate quantitation. Methods Enzymol. 2010;472:407e430. DOI: 10.1016/
S0076-6879(10)72002-4
[57] Nextera XT DNA sample preparation guide [Internet]. Available from: http://
www.liai.org/files/nextera_xt_sample_preparation_guide_15031942_c.pdf [Accessed:
2015-07-01].
[58] Illumina cBot [Internet]. Available from: http://www.illumina.com/documents/prod‐

ucts/datasheets/datasheet_cbot.pdf (Accessed: 2015-07-01].
[59] Ion ChefTM or the Ion OneTouchTm 2 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.life‐
technologies.com/au/en/home/brands/ion-torrent.html [Accessed: 2015-07-01].
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[60] Rothberg JM, Hinz W, Rearick TM, et al: An integrated semiconductor device ena‐
bling non-optical genome sequencing. Nature. 2011;475:348–52. DOI: 10.1038/
nature10242
[61] Bentley DR, Balasubramanian S, Swerdlow HP, et al: Accurate whole human genome
sequencing using reversible terminator chemistry. Nature. 2008;456:53–9. DOI:
10.1038/nature07517
[62] Ma Z, Lee RW, Li B, et al: Isothermal amplification method for next-generation se‐
quencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:14320–3. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1311334110
[63] Aird D, Ross MG, Chen WS, et al: Analyzing and minimizing PCR amplification bias
in Illumina sequencing libraries. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R18. DOI: 10.1186/
gb-2011-12-2-r18
[64] Kozarewa, I, Kozarewa I, Ning Z, et al: Amplification-free Illumina sequencing-li‐

brary preparation facilitates improved mapping and assembly of (G+C)-biased ge‐
nomes. Nat Methods. 2009;6:291–5. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1311
[65] Bio-IT World Staff. Six Years After Acquisition, Roche Quietly Shutters 454 [Internet].
Available from: http://www.bio-itworld.com/2013/10/16/six-years-after-acquisition-
roche-quietly-shutters-454.html [Accessed: 2015-06-16].
[66] Shendure J, Ji H: Next-generation DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:1135–45.

DOI: 10.1038/nbt1486
[67] Balasubramanian S: Solexa sequencing: Decoding genomes on a population scale.

Clin Chem. 2015;61:21–4. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.221747
[68] Illumina Sequencer Comparison Table [Internet]. Available from: http://www.illumi‐

na.com/systems/sequencing.html [Accessed: 2015-06-16].
[69] McCoy RC, Taylor RW, Blauwkamp TA, et al: Illumina TruSeq synthetic long-reads
empower de novo assembly and resolve complex, highly-repetitive transposable ele‐
ments. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e106689. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106689
[70] Drmanac R, Sparks AB, Callow MJ, et al: Human genome sequencing using un‐
chained base reads on self-assembling DNA nanoarrays. Science. 2010;327:78–81.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1181498
[71] Retrovolocity [Internet]. Available from: http://www.completegenomics.com/revo‐

locity/ [Accessed: 2015-06-26].
[72] Wang Y, Wen Z, Shen J, et al: Comparison of the performance of Ion Torrent chips in
noninvasive prenatal trisomy detection. J Hum Genet. 2014;59:393–6. DOI: 10.1038/
jhg.2014.40
[73] Diekstra A, Bosgoed E, Rikken A, et al: Translating Sanger-based routine DNA diag‐
nostics into generic massive parallel ion semiconductor sequencing. Clin Chem.
2015;61:154–62. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.225250
[74] Schadt EE, Turner S, Kasarskis A: A window into third-generation sequencing. Hum
Mol Gene. 2010;19:R227–40. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddq416
[75] Eid J, Fehr A, Gray J, et al: Real-time DNA sequencing from single polymerase mole‐
cules. Science. 2009;323:133–8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1162986
[76] Travers KJ, Chin C-S, Rank DR, Eid JS, Turner SW: A flexible and efficient template
format for circular consensus sequencing and SNP detection. Nucleic Acids Res.
2010;38(15):e159. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq543
[77] Koren S, Harhay GP, Smith TP, et al: Reducing assembly complexity of microbial ge‐
nomes with single-molecule sequencing. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R101.
[78] Thompson JF, Steinmann KE: Single molecule sequencing with a HeliScope Genetic
Analysis System. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2010;Chapter 7:Unit7.10. DOI:
10.1002/0471142727.mb0710s92
[79] Fuller CW, Middendorf LR, Benner SA, et al: The challenges of sequencing by syn‐
thesis. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:1013–23. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.1585
[80] Pushkarev D, Neff NF, Quake SR: Single-molecule sequencing of an individual hu‐
man genome. Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:847–52. PubMed: 19668243
[81] Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al: Clinical assessment incorporating a personal
genome. Lancet. 2010;375:1525–35. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60452-7
[82] Hickman SE, Kingery ND, Ohsumi T, et al: The microglial sensome revealed by di‐
rect RNA sequencing. Nat Neurosci. 2013;16:1896–905. DOI: 10.1038/nn.3554
[83] Bayley H: Nanopore sequencing: From imagination to reality. Clin Chem.

2015;61:25–31. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.223016
[84] Wang Y, Yang Q, Wang Z: The evolution of nanopore sequencing. Front Genet.
2005;5:1–20. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00449
[85] Bayley H, Cremer PS: Stochastic sensors inspired by biology. Nature. 2001;413:226–
30. PMID: 11557992
[86] Stoddart D, Heron A, Mikhailova E, Maglia G, Bayley H: Single nucleotide discrimi‐

nation in immobilized DNA oligonucleotides with a biological nanopore. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:7702–7. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0901054106
[87] Laver T, Harrison J, O’Neill PA, et al: Assessing the performance of the Oxford
Nanopore Technologies MinION. Biomol Detect Quant. 2015;3:1–8.
[88] Bell DC, Thomas WK, Murtagh KM, et al: DNA base identification by electron micro‐
scopy. Microsc Microanal. 2012;18:1049–53. DOI: 10.1017/S1431927612012615
[89] Bragg LM, Stone G, Butler MK, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW: Shining a light on dark
sequencing: Characterising errors in Ion Torrent PGM Data. PLoS Comput Biol.
2013;9:e1003031. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003031
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[90] Gilles A, Meglecz E, Pech N, et al: Accuracy and quality assessment of 454 GS-FLX
Titanium pyrosequencing. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:245. DOI:
10.1186/1471-2164-12-245
[91] Huse SM, Huber JA, Morrison HG, Sogin ML, Welch DM: Accuracy and quality of
massively parallel DNA pyrosequencing. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R143. PMID: 17659080
[92] Sims D, Sudbery I, Ilott NE, Heger A, Ponting CP: Sequencing depth and coverage:
key considerations in genomic analyses. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:121–32. DOI:
10.1038/nrg3642
[93] Loman NJ, Misra RV, Dallman TJ, et al: Performance comparison of benchtop high-
throughput sequencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:434–9. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.
2198. Erratum in Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30:562.
[94] Quail M, Smith M, Coupland P, et al: A tale of three next generation sequencing plat‐
forms: comparison of Ion Torrent, Pacific Biosciences and Illumina MiSeq sequenc‐
ers. BMC Genomics. 2012;13:341. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-341
[95] Rieber N, Zapatka M, Lasitschka B, et al: Coverage bias and sensitivity of variant
calling for four whole-genome sequencing technologies. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66621.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066621
[96] Fuellgrabe MW, Herrmann D, Knecht H, et al: High-throughput, amplicon-based se‐

quencing of the CREBBP gene as a tool to develop a universal platform-independent
assay. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0129195. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129195
[97] Ozaki Y, Suzuki S, Kashiwase K, et al: Cost-efficient multiplex PCR for routine geno‐
typing of up to nine classical HLA loci in a single analytical run of multiple samples
by next generation sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:318. DOI: 10.1186/
s12864-015-1514-4
[98] Horner DS, Pavesi G, Castrignano T, et al: Bioinformatics approaches for genomics
and post genomics applications of next generation sequencing. Brief Bioinform.
2010;11:181–97. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbp046
[99] El-Metwally S, Hamza T, Zakaria M, Helmy M: Next-generation sequence assembly:

four stages of data processing and computational challenges. PLoS Comput Biol.
2013;9:e1003345. DOI: 10.1007/s10142-015-0433-4
[100] Land M, Hauser L, Jun SR, et al: Insights from 20 years of bacterial genome sequenc‐
ing. Funct Integr Genomics. 2015;15:141–61. DOI: 10.1007/s10142-015-0433-4
[101] Hong HX, Zhang WQ, Shen J, et al: Critical role of bioinformatics in translating huge
amounts of next-generation sequencing data into personalized medicine. Sci China
Life Sci. 2013;56:110–8. DOI: 10.1007/s11427-013-4439-7
[102] Oliver GR, Hart SN, Klee EW: Bioinformatics for clinical next generation sequencing.
Clin Chem. 2015;61:124–35. DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2014.224360
[103] Yandell M, Ence D: A beginner’s guide to eukaryotic genome annotation. Nat Rev
Genet. 2012;13:329–42. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3174
[104] Schlotterer C, Tablerm R, Kofler R, Nolte V: Sequencing pools of individuals—Min‐

ing genome wide polymorphism data without big funding. Nat Rev Genet.
2014;15:749–63. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3803
[105] Shumway M, Cochrane G, Sugawara H: Archiving next generation sequencing data.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:D870–1. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp1078
[106] Korneliussen TS, Albrechtsen A, Nielsen R: ANGSD: Analysis of next generation se‐
quencing data. BMC Bioinform. 2014;15:356. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-014-0356-4
[107] Ruan J, Jiang L, Chong Z, et al: Pseudo-Sanger sequencing: massively parallel pro‐
duction of long and near error-free reads using NGS technology. BMC Genomics.
2013;14:711. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-711
[108] Bradnam Fass JN, Alexandrov A, et al: Assemblathon 2: Evaluating de novo methods
of genome assembly in three vertebrate species. Gigascience. 2013;2:10. DOI:
10.1186/2047-217X-2-10
[109] Medina I, Salavert F, Sanchez R, et al: Genome Maps, a new generation genome
browser. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:W41–6. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt530
[110] Cunningham F, Amode MR, Barrell D, et al: Ensembl 2015. Nucleic Acids Res.
2015;43:D662–9. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku1010
[111] Fiers W, Contreras R, Duerinck F, et al: Complete nucleotide sequence of bacterio‐
phage MS2 RNA: primary and secondary structure of the replicase gene. Nature.
1976;260:500–7. PMID: 1264203
[112] Kuska B: Beer, Bethesda and biology: How “genomics” came into being. J Natl Can‐
cer Inst. 1998;80:93. PMID: 9450566
[113] Hocquette JF, Cassar-Malek, Scalbert A, Guillou F: Contribution of genomics to the

understanding of physiological functions. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009;60(Suppl 3):5–
16. PMID: 19996478
[114] Wylie KM, Weinstock GM, Storch GA: Virome genomics: A tool for defining the hu‐
man virome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2013;16(4):479–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.mib.2013.04.006
[115] Kwong JC, McCallum, Sintchenko V, Howden BP: Whole genome sequencing in clin‐
ical and public health microbiology. Pathol. 2015;47:199–210. DOI: 10.1097/PAT.
0000000000000235
[116] Chun J, Rainey FA: Integrating genomics into taxonomy and systematics of the Bac‐
teria and Archaea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2014;64:316–24. DOI 10.1099/ijs.
0.054171-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[117] Ladner JT, Beitzel, Chain PSG: Standards for sequencing viral genomes in the era of
high-throughput sequencing. mBio. 2014;5:e01360–14. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01360-14
[118] Galagan JE, Henn MR, Ma L-J, Cuomo CA, Birren B: Genomics of the fungal king‐
dom: Insights into eukaryotic biology. Genome Res. 2005;15:1620–31. PMID:
16339359
[119] Stajich JE, Harris T, Brunk BP, et al: FungiDB: an integrated functional genomics da‐
tabase for fungi. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D675–81. DOI:
10.1093/nar/gkr918
[120] Kim KM, Park J-H, Bhattacharya D, Yoon HS: Applications of next-generation se‐
quencing to unraveling the evolutionary history of algae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol.
2014;64:333–45. DOI: 10.1099/ijs.0.054221-0
[121] Pareek CSP, Smoczynski R, Tretyn A: Sequencing technologies and genome sequenc‐
ing. J Appl Genet. 2011;52:413–35. DOI: 10.1007/s13353-011-0057-x
[122] Ekblom R, Wolf JBW: A field guide to whole-genome sequencing, assembly and an‐
notation. Evol Appl. 2014;7:1026–42. DOI: 10.1111/eva.12178
[123] Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Lupski JR, Gibbs RA: Human genome sequencing in health and
disease. Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:35–61. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-051010-162644
[124] Tewhey R, Bansal V, Torkamani A, Topol EJ, Schork NJ: The importance of phase in‐
formation for human genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:215–23. DOI: 10.1038/
nrg2950
[125] Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al: ACMG recommendations for reporting of inci‐
dental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–
74. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013
[126] Taylor JC, Martin HC, Lise S, et al: Factors influencing success of clinical genome se‐
quencing across a broad spectrum of disorders. Nat Genet. 2015;47:717–26. DOI:
10.1038/ng.3304
[127] Handsaker RE, Van Doren V, Berman JR, et al: Large multiallelic copy number varia‐
tions in humans. Nat Genet. 2015;47:296–303. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3200
[128] Ammar R, Paton TA, Torti D, Shlein A, Bader GD: Long read nanopore sequencing
for detection of HLA and CYP2D6 variants and haplotypes. F1000Res. 2015;4:17.
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.6037.1
[129] Erlich HA: HLA typing using next generation sequencing: An overview. Hum Im‐
munol. 2015;pii: S0198-8859(15)00093-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2015.03.001
[130] Shiina T, Hosomichi K, Inoko H, Kulski JK: The HLA genomic loci map: Expression,
interaction, diversity and disease. J Hum Genet. 2009;54:15–39. DOI: 10.1038/jhg.
2008.5
[131] Mortazavi A, Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L, Wold B: Mapping and quantifying
mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods. 2008;5:621–8. DOI: 10.1038/
nmeth.1226
[132] Nagalakshmi U, Wang Z, Waern K, et al: The transcriptional landscape of the yeast
genome defined by RNA sequencing. Science. 2008;320:1344–9. DOI: 10.1126/science.
1158441
[133] Kapranov P, St. Laurent G: Dark matter RNA: Existence, function, and controversy.
Front Genet. 2012;3:article 60:1–9. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00060
[134] Birney E. Stamatoyannopoulos, JA, Dutta A, et al: Identification and analysis of func‐
tional elements in 1% of the human genome by the encode pilot project. Nature.
2007;447:799–816. PMID: 17571346
[135] Clamp, M. Fry B, Kamal M, et al: Distinguishing protein-coding and noncoding

genes in the human genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104:19428–33. PMID:
18040051
[136] Marioni JC, Mason CE, Mane SM, Stephens M, Gilad Y: RNA-seq: An assessment of
technical reproducibility and comparison with gene expression arrays. Genome Res.
2008;18:1509–17. DOI: 10.1101/gr.079558.108
[137] Costa V, Angelini C, de Feis I, Ciccodicola A: Uncovering the complexity of tran‐

scriptomes with RNA-seq. J. Biomed. Biotechnol. 2010;2010:853916. DOI:
10.1155/2010/853916
[138] The RNAcentral Consortium: RNAcentral: an international database of ncRNA se‐

quences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:D123–9. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku991
[139] Huntzinger E, Izaurrralde E: Gene silencing by microRNAs: contributions of transla‐

tional repression and miRNA decay. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12:99–110. DOI: 10.1038/
nrg2936
[140] Ross RJ, Weiner MM, Lin H: PIWI proteins and PIWI-interacting RNAs in the soma.
Nature. 2014;505:353–9. DOI: 10.1038/nature12987
[141] Lindblad-Toh K, Garber M, Zuk O: A high-resolution map of human evolutionary

constraint using 29 mammals. Nature. 2011;478:476–82. DOI: 10.1038/nature10530
[142] Fujii YR: RNA genes: Retroelements and virally retroposable microRNAs in human
embryonic stem cells. Open Virol J. 2010;4:63–75. DOI: 10.2174/1874357901004010063
[143] Kelley D, Rinn J: Transposable elements reveal a stem cell-specific class of long non‐
coding RNAs. Genome Biol. 2012;13:R107. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-11-r107
[144] Amaral PP, Dinger ME, Mattick JS: Non-coding RNAs in homeostasis, disease and
stress responses: An evolutionary perspective. Brief Funct Genomics. 2013;12:254–78.
DOI: 10.1093/bfgp/elt016
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[145] Moolhuijzen P, Kulski JK, Dunn DS, et al: The transcript repeat element: The human
Alu sequence as a component of gene networks influencing cancer. Funct Integr Ge‐
nomics. 2010;10:307–19. DOI: 10.1007/s10142-010-0168-1
[146] Costa FF: Non-coding RNAs, epigenetics and complexity. Gene. 2008;410:9–17. DOI:
10.1016/j.gene.2007.12.008
[147] Derrien T, Johnson R, Bussotti G, et al: The GENCODEv7 catalog of human long non‐
coding RNAs: Analysis of their gene structure, evolution and expression. Genome
Res. 2012;22:1775–89. DOI: 10.1101/gr.132159.111
[148] Yarmishyn AA, Kurochkin IV: Long noncoding RNAs: a potential novel class of can‐
cer biomarkers. Front Genet. 2015;6:Article 145:1–10. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00145
[149] Iyer MK, Niknafs YS, Malik R: The landscape of long noncoding RNAs in the human
transcriptome. Nat Genet. 2015;47:199–208. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3192
[150] Vance KW, Ponting CP: Transcriptional regulatory functions of nuclear long noncod‐
ing RNAs. Trends Genet. 2014;30:348–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2014.06.001
[151] Ward AJ, Cooper TA: The pathobiology of splicing. J Pathol. 2010;220:152–63. DOI:
10.1002/path.2649
[152] Poulos MG, Batra R, Charizanis K, Swanson MS: Developments in RNA splicing and
disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011;3:a000778. DOI: 10.1101/cshper‐
spect.a000778
[153] Melé M, Ferreira PG, Reverter F, et al: Human genomics. The human transcriptome
across tissues and individuals. Science. 2015;348:660–5. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0355
[154] Landt SG, Marinov GK, Kundaje A, et al: ChIP-seq guidelines and practices of the
ENCODE and modENCODE consortia. Genome Res. 2012; 22:1813–31. DOI:
10.1101/gr.136184.111
[155] de Witt E, de Laat W: A decade of 3C technologies: Insights into nuclear organiza‐

tion. Genes Dev. 2012;26:11–24. DOI: 10.1101/gad.179804.111
[156] Berggard T, Linse S, James P: Methods for the detection and analysis of protein-pro‐
tein interactions. Proteomics. 2007;7:2833–42. DOI: 10.1002/pmic.200700131
[157] Malm EK, Srivastava V, Sundqvist G, Bulone V: APP: An Automated Proteomics

Pipeline for the analysis of mass spectrometry data based on multiple open access
tools. BMC Bioinform. 2014;15:441. DOI: 10.1186/s12859-014-0441-8
[158] Chagoyen M, Pazos F: Tools for functional interpretation of metabolomics experi‐

ments. Brief Bioinform. 2013;14:737–44. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbs055
[159] Pavlidid C, Patrinos GP, Katsila T: Nutrigenomics: A controversy. Appl Transl Ge‐
nomics. 2015;4:50–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.atg.2015.02.003
[160] Winter G, Krömer JO: Fluxomics — Connecting “omics” analysis and phenotypes.
Environ Microbiol. 2013;15:1901–16. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.12064
[161] Stanberry L, Mias GI, Haynes W, Higdon R, Snyder M, Kolker E: Integrative analysis
of longitudinal metabolomics data from a personal multi-omics profile. Metabolites.
2013;3:741–60. DOI: 10.3390/metabo3030741
[162] Hernández-Prieto MA, Semeniuk TA, Futschik ME: Toward a systems-level under‐
standing of gene regulatory, protein interaction, and metabolic networks in cyano‐
bacteria. Front Genet. 2014;5:191. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2014.0019
[163] Wang Q, Lu Q, Zhao H: A review of study designs and statistical methods for ge‐
nomic epidemiology studies using next generation sequencing. Front Genet.
2015:6:149. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00149
[164] Editorial: Marshaling the variome. Nat Genet. 2015;47:849. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3377
[165] Groza T, Kohler S, Moldenhauer D, et al: The human phenotype ontology: Semantic
unification of common and rare disease. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;97:111–24. DOI:
10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.05.020
[166] Paltoo DN, Rodriguez LL, Feolo M, et al: Data use under the NIH GWAS data shar‐
ing policy and future directions. Nat Genet. 2014;46:934–8. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3062
[167] Lappalainen I, Almeida-King J, Kumanduri V, et al: The European Genome-phe‐
nome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research. Nat Genet.
2015;47:692–5. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3312
[168] Bashir Y, Singh SP, Konwar BK: Metagenomics: an application based perspective.
Chin J Biol. 2014;ID146030:7 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/146030
[169] Gilbert JA, Dupont CL: Microbial metagenomics: Beyond the genome. Annu Rev
Mar Sci. 2011;3:347–71. PMID: 21329209
[170] Croucher NJ, Harris SR, Grad YH, Hanage WP: Bacterial genomes in epidemiology
— Present and future. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2013;368:20120202. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1098/rstb.2012.0202
[171] Grad YH, Lipsitch M: Epidemiologic data and pathogen genome sequences: a power‐
ful synergy for public health. Genome Biol. 2014;15:538. http://genomebiology.com/
2014/15/11/538
[172] Sunagawa S, Coelho LP, Chaffron S, et al: Ocean plankton. Structure and function of
the global ocean microbiome. Science. 2015;348:1261359. DOI: 10.1126/science.
1261359
[173] de Vargas C, Audic S, Henry N, et al: Ocean plankton. Eukaryotic plankton diversity
in the sunlit ocean. Science. 2015;348:1261605. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261605
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[174] Brum JR, Ignacio-Espinoza JC, Roux S, et al: Ocean plankton. Patterns and ecological
drivers of ocean viral communities. Science. 2015;348:1261498. DOI: 10.1126/science.
1261498
[175] Weinstock GM: Genomic approaches to studying the human microbiota. Nature.
2012;489:250–6. DOI: 10.1038/nature11553
[176] Morgan XC, Segata N, Huttenhower C: Biodiversity and functional genomics in the
human microbiome. Trends Genet. 2013;29:51–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.09.005
[177] Ursell LK, Metcalf JL, Parfrey LW, Knight R: Defining the human microbiome. Nutr
Rev. 2012;70 Suppl 1:S38–44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00493.x
[178] Reddy TBK, Thomas A, Stamatis D, et al: The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.
5: a metadata management system based on a four level (meta)genome project classi‐
fication. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;97:111–24. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gku950
[179] Myer F, Paarmann D, D’Souza M, et al: The metagenomics RAST server—A public
resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes.
BMC Bioinform. 2008;9:386. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-9-386
[180] Zelezniak A, Andrejev S, Ponomarova O, Mende DR, Bork P, Patil KR: Metabolic de‐
pendencies drive species co-occurrence in diverse microbial communities. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:6449-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1421834112 (2015)
[181] Olsen GJ, Woese C: Archael genomics: An overview. Cell. 1997;89:991–4. PMID:
9215619
[182] Hagen JB: Five kingdoms, more or less: Robert Whittaker and the broad classification
of organisms. BioScience. 2012;62:67–74. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.11
[183] Pawlowski J: The new micro-kingdoms of eukaryotes. BMC Biol. 2013;11:40. DOI:
10.1186/1741-7007-11-40
[184] Adl SM, Simpson AGB, Lane CE, et al: The revised classification of eukaryotes. J Eu‐
karyot Microbiol. 2012;59:429–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1550-7408.2012.00644.x
[185] Villarreal LP: How viruses shape the tree of life. Future Virol. 2006;1:587–95.
[186] Moreira D, Lopez-Garcia P: Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life. Nat
Rev Microbiol. 2009;7:306–11. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2108
[187] Philippe N, Legendre M, Doutre G, et al: Pandoraviruses: Amoeba viruses with ge‐
nomes up to 2.5 Mb reaching that of parasitic eukaryotes. Science. 2013;341:281–6.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1239181
[188] Legendre M, Bartoli J, Shmakova L, et al: Thirty-thousand-year-old distant relative of

giant icosahedral DNA viruses with a pandoravirus morphology. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 2014;111:4274–9. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320670111
[189] Beerenwinkel N, Gunthard HF, Roth V, Metzner KJ: Challenges and opportunities in
estimating viral genetic diversity from next-generation sequencing data. Front Micro‐
biol. 2012;3:329. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2012.00329
[190] Shah V, Zakrzewski M, Wibberg D, Eikmeyer F, Schlüter A, Madamwar D: Taxo‐

nomic profiling and metagenome analysis of a microbial community from a habitat
contaminated with industrial discharges. Microb Ecol. 2013;66:533-50. DOI: 10.1007/
s00248-013-0244-x
[191] Soucy SM, Huang J, Gogarten JP: Horizontal gene transfer: Building the web of life.
Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16:472–82. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3962
[192] Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Koonin EV: Comparative genomics of defense systems in
archaea and bacteria. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:4360–77. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt157
[193] Haft DH, Selengut J, Mongodin EF, Nelson KN: A guild of 45 CRISPR-associated
(Cas) protein families and multiple CRISPR/Cas subtypes exist in prokaryotic ge‐
nomes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005;1:e60. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010060
[194] Louwen R, Staals RHJ, Endtz HP, van Baarlen P, van der Oost J: The role of CRISPR-
Cas systems in virulence of pathogenic bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78:74–
88. DOI: 10.1128/Mmbr. 00039- 13
[195] Makarova KS, Haft DH, Barrangou R, et al: Evolution and classification of the
CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:467–77. DOI: 10.1038/nrmicro2577
[196] Shalem O, Sanjana NE, Zhang F: High-throughput functional genomics using

CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16:299–310. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3899
[197] Liao, HK, Gu Y, Diaz A, et al: Use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system as an intracellular de‐
fense against HIV-1 infection in human cells. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6413. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms7413
[198] Chowdhury C, Sinha S, Chun S, Yeates TO, Bobik TA: Diverse bacterial microcom‐
partment organelles. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2014;78:438–68. DOI: 10.1128/mmbr.
00009-14
[199] Jorda J, Lopez D, Wheatley NM, Yeates TO: Using comparative genomics to uncover
new kinds of protein-based metabolic organelles in bacteria. Protein Sci. 2013;22:179–
95. DOI: 10.1002/pro.2196
[200] Vasu K, Nagaraja V: Diverse functions of restriction-modification systems in addi‐

tion to cellular defense. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2013;77:53–72. DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.
00044-12
[201] Zilberman D: The evolving functions of DNA methylation. Curr Opin Plant Biol.
2008;11:554–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2008.07.004
[202] Guy L, Ettema TJG: The archaeal ‘TACK’ superphylum and the origin of eukaryotes.
Trends Microbiol. 2011;19:580–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2011.09.002
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[203] Spang A, Saw JH, Jørgensen SL, et al: Complex archaea that bridge the gap between
prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Nature. 2015;521:173–9. DOI: 10.1038/nature14447
[204] Margulis L: Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1970.
[205] Gray MW: Mitochondrial evolution. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2012;4:a01140.
DOI: 10.1101/cshperspect.a011403
[206] Kabnick KS, Peattie DA: Gardia: A missing link between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Am Sci. 1991;79:34–43.
[207] Wilkins AS, Holliday R: The evolution of meiosis from mitosis. Genetics. 2009;181:3–
12. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.108.099762
[208] Otto SP: The evolutionary consequences of polyploidy. Cell. 2007;13:452–62. PMID:
17981114
[209] Davoli T, de Lange T: The causes and consequences of polyploidy in normal devel‐
opment and cancer. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2011;27:585–610. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-
cellbio-092910-154234
[210] Madlung A: Polyploidy and its effect on evolutionary success: old questions visited
with new tools. Heredity. 2013;110:99–104. DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2012.79
[211] Hindle MM, Martin SF, Noordally ZB, et al: The reduced kinome of Ostreococcus
tauri: core eukaryotic signally components in a tractable model species. BMC Genom‐
ics. 2014;15:640. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-15-640
[212] Pellicer J, Fay MF, Leitch IJ: The largest eukaryotic genome of them all? Botanical J
Linnean Soc. 2010;164:10–5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01072.x
[213] Katju V, Bergthorsson U: Copy-number changes in evolution: rates, fitness effects

and adaptive significance. Front Genet. 2013;4:273. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00273
[214] Garsmeur O, Schnable JC, Almeida A, Jourda C, D’Hont A, Freeling M: Two evolu‐
tionary distinct classes of paleopolyploidy. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31:448–54. DOI:
10.1093/molbev/mst230
[215] Dehal P, Boore JL: Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral verte‐
brate. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e314. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314
[216] Ohno S. Evolution by Gene Duplication. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1970.
[217] Parisod C, Mhiri C, Lim KY, et al: Differential dynamics of transposable elements
during long-term diploidization of Nicotiana Section Repandae (Solanaceae) allopoly‐
ploid genomes. PLoS One. 2012;7:e50352. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050352
[218] Renny-Byfield S, Kovarik A, Kelly LJ, et al: Diploidization and genome size change
in allopolyploids is associated with differential dynamics of low- and high-copy se‐
quences. Plant J. 2013;74:829–39. DOI: 10.1111/tpj.12168
[219] Wang X, Freeling M: The Brassica genome. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4:148. DOI: 10.3389/
fpls.2013.00148
[220] Shikari AB, Parray GA, Sofi NR, Hussain A, Dar ZA, Iqbal AM: Group balanced
block design for comparisons among oilseed Brassicae. Sci Res Essays. 2015;10:302–5.
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00148
[221] Michael TP, Jackson S: The first 50 plant genomes. Plant Genome. 2013;6:1–7.
[222] Feldman M, Levy AA: Genome evolution due to allopolyploidization in wheat. Ge‐
netics. 2012;192:763–74. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.112.146316
[223] Chapman, Mascher M, Buluc A, et al: A whole-genome shotgun approach for assem‐
bling and anchoring the hexaploid bread wheat genome. Genome Biol. 2015;16:26.
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-015-0582-8
[224] Ainouche ML, Fortune PM, Salmon A, et al: Hybridization, polyploidy and invasion:
Lessons from Spartina (Poaceae). Biol Inv. 2008;11:1159–73. DOI: 10.1007/
s10530-008-9383-2
[225] Brawand D, Wagner CE, Li YI, et al: The genomic substrate for adaptive radiation in
African cichlid fish. Nature. 2014;513:375–81. DOI: 10.1038/nature13726
[226] Seehausen O, Butlin RK, Keller I, et al: Genomics and the origin of species. Nat Rev
Genet. 2014;15:176–92. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3644
[227] Alvarez-Ponce D, Lopez P, Bapteste E, McInerney JO: Gene similarity networks pro‐
vide tools for understanding eukaryote origins and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 2013;110:E1594–603. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1211371110
[228] Feschotte C: The contribution of transposable elements to the evolution of regulatory

networks. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:397–405. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2337
[229] Bejerano G, Pheasant M, Makunin I, et al: Ultraconserved elements in the human ge‐
nome. Science. 2004;304:1321–5. DOI: 10.1126/science.1098119
[230] Miller W, Rosenbloom K, Hardison RC, et al: 28-way vertebrate alignment and con‐
servation track in the UCSC genome browser. Genome Res. 2007;17:1797–808. PMID:
17984227
[231] Dimitrieva S, Bucher P: UCNEbase—A database of ultraconserved non-coding ele‐

ments and genomic regulatory blocks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(Database is‐
sue):D101-9. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1092
[232] Luo H, Lin Y, Gao F, Zhang C-T, Zhang R: DEG 10, an update of the Database of Es‐
sential Genes that includes both protein-coding genes and non-coding genomic ele‐
ments. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D574–80. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1131
[233] Huerta-Cepas J, Dopazo H, Dopazo J, Gabaldón T: The human phylome. Genome Bi‐
ol. 2007;8:R109. PMID: 17567924
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[234] Huerta-Cepas J, Capella-Gutiérrez S, Pryszcz LP, Marcet-Houben M, Gabaldón T:

PhylomeDB v4: Zooming into the plurality of evolutionary histories of a genome.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D897–902. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1177
[235] Matsuzaka Y, Okamoto K, Mabuchi T, et al: Identification, expression analysis and
polymorphism of a novel RLTPR gene encoding a RGD motif, tropomodulin domain
and proline/leucine-rich regions. Gene. 2004;343:291–304. PMID: 15588584
[236] Liang Y, Cucchetti M, Roncagalli R, et al: The lymphoid lineage-specific actin-uncap‐

ping protein Rltpr is essential for costimulation via CD28 and the development of
regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol. 2013;14:858–66. DOI: 10.1038/ni.2634
[237] Willems L, Gillet NA: APOBEC3 interference during replication of viral genomes. Vi‐
ruses. 2015;7:2999–3018. DOI: 10.3390/v7062757
[238] Richard GF, Kerrest A, Dujon B: Comparative genomics and molecular dynamics of
DNA repeats in eukaryotes. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2008;72:686–727. DOI: 10.1128/
MMBR.00011-08
[239] McClintock B: The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science.

1984;226:792–801. PMID: 15739260
[240] Jurka J, Klonowski P, Dagman V, Pelton P: CENSOR—A program for identification

and elimination of repetitive elements from DNA sequences. Comput Chem.
1996;20:119–21. PMID: 8867843
[241] Kohany O, Gentles AJ, Hankus L, Jurka J: Annotation, submission and screening of
repetitive elements in Repbase: Rep baseSubmitter and Censor. BMC Bioinform.
2006;7:474. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-7-474
[242] Thung DT, de Ligt J, Vissers LEM, et al: Mobster: Accurate detection of mobile ele‐
ment insertions in next generation sequencing data. Genome Biol. 2014:15:488. PMID:
25348035
[243] Girgis HZ: Red: An intelligent, rapid, accurate tool for detecting repeats de-novo on
the genomic scale. BMC Bioinform. 2015;16:227. DOI 10.1186/s12859-015-0654-5
[244] Tempel S, Talla E. VisualTE: a graphical interface for transposable element analysis
at the genomic scale. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:139. DOI 10.1186/s12864-015-1351-5
[245] Burns KH, Boeke JD: Human transposon tectonics. Cell. 2012;149:740–52. DOI:
10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.019
[246] Feschotte C, Pritham EJ: DNA transposons and the evolution of eukaryotic genomes.
Annu Rev Genet. 2007;41:331–48. PMID: 18076328
[247] Frost LS, Leplae R, Summers AO, Toussaint A: Mobile genetic elements: The agents
of open source evolution. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005;3:722–32. PMID:16138100
[248] Giordano J, Ge Y, Gelfand Y, Abrusa´n G, Benson G, et al: Evolutionary history of

mammalian transposons determined by genome-wide defragmentation. PLoS Com‐
put Biol. 2007;3:e137. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030137
[249] Hoen DR, Bureau TE: Discovery of novel genes derived from transposable elements
using integrative genomic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32(6):1487–506. DOI: 10.1093/
molbev/msv042
[250] Bao W, Kojima KK, Kohany O: Repbase Update, a database of repetitive elements in
eukaryotic genomes. Mob DNA 2015;6:11. DOI: 10.1186/s13100-015-0041-9
[251] Menconi G, Battaglia G, Grossi R, Pisanti N, Marangoni R: Mobilomics in Saccharo‐

myces cerevisiae strains. BMC Bioinform. 2013;14:102. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-102
[252] SanMiguel P, Tikhonov A, Jin YK, et al: Nested retrotransposons in the intergenic re‐
gions of the maize genome. Science. 1996;274:765–8. PMID: 12021852
[253] Koonin EV, Wolf YI: Genomics of bacteria and archaea: The emerging dynamic view
of the prokaryotic world. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:6688–719. DOI: 10.1093/nar/
gkn668
[254] Raymond J, Zhaxybayeva O, Gogarten JP, Gerdes SY, Blankenship RE: Whole-ge‐
nome analysis of photosynthetic prokaryotes. Science. 2002;298:1616–20. PMID:
12446909
[255] Rankin DJ, Rocha EPC, Brown SP: What traits are carried on mobile genetic elements,
and why? Heredity. 2011;106:1–10. DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.24
[256] Boto L: Horizontal gene transfer in the acquisition of novel traits by metazoans. Proc
R Soc B. 2014;281:20132450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2450
[257] Jjingo D, Conley AB, Wang J, et al: Mammalian-wide interspersed repeat (MIR)-de‐
rived enhancers and the regulation of human gene expression. Mobile DNA.
2014;5:14. DOI: 10.1186/1759-8753-5-14
[258] Wang J, Vicente-García C, Seruggia D, et al: MIR retrotransposon sequences provide

insulators to the human genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:E4428–37. DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1507253112
[259] Kulski JK, Gaudieri S, Inoko H, Dawkins RL: Comparison between two human en‐
dogenous retrovirus (HERV)-rich regions within the major histocompatibility com‐
plex. J Mol Evol. 1999;48:675–83. PMID: 10229571
[260] Kulski JK, Gaudieri S, Martin A, Dawkins RL: Coevolution of PERB11 (MIC) and
HLA class I genes with HERV-16 and retroelements by extended genomic duplica‐
tion. J Mol Evol. 1999;49:84–97. PMID: 15269276
[261] Kulski JK, Anzai T, Shiina T, Inoko H: Rhesus macaque class I duplicon structures,
organization, and evolution within the alpha block of the major histocompatibility
complex. Mol Biol Evol. 2004;21:2079–91. PMID:15269276
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61964
[262] Lander E: Initial impact of the sequencing of the human genome. Nature.
2011;470:187–97. DOI: 10.1038/nature09792
[263] Ball MP, Bobe JR, Chuo MF, et al: Harvard Personal Genome Project: Lessons from
participatory public research. Genome Med. 2014;6:10. DOI: 10.1186/gm527
[264] The International HapMap Consortium: Integrating common and rare genetic varia‐
tion in diverse human populations. Nature. 2010;467:52-58. DOI: 10.1038/nature09298
[265] HUGO Pan-Asian SNP Consortium, Abdulla MA, Ahmed I, et al: Mapping human
genetic diversity in Asia. Science. 2009;326:1541-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.1177074
[266] Pagini L, Schiffels S, Gurdasani D, et al: Tracing the route of modern humans out of
Africa by using 225 human genome sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians. Am J
Hum Genet. 2015;96:986–91. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.04.019
[267] Colonna V, Ayub Q, Chen Y, et al: Human genomic regions with exceptionally high
levels of population differentiation identified from 911 whole-genome sequences. Ge‐
nome Biol. 2014;14:R88. DOI: 10.1186/gb-2014-15-6-r88
[268] Johnson JJ, Lewis KL, Ng D, et al: Individualized iterative phenotyping for genome-
wide analysis of loss-of-function mutations. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;96;913–25. DOI:
10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.04.013
[269] Chen R, Mias GI, Li-Pook-Than J, et al: Personal omics profiling reveals dynamic mo‐
lecular and medical phenotypes. Cell. 2012;148:1293–307. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.
2012.02.009
[270] Frese KS, Katus HA, Meder B: Next generation sequencing. From understanding bi‐
ology to personalized medicine. Biology. 2013;2:378–98. DOI: 10.3390/biology2010378
[271] Veeramah KR, Hammer MF: The impact of whole-genome sequencing on the recon‐
struction of human population history. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:162. DOI: 10.1038/
nrg3625
[272] Hofreiter M, Paijmans LA, Goodchild H, et al: The future of ancient DNA: Technical
advances and conceptual shifts. Bioessays. 2014;37:284–93. DOI: 10.1002/bies.
201400160
[273] Tryka KA, Hao L, Sturcke A, et al: The Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes
(dbGaP) and PheGenI. The NCBI Handbook [Internet]. 2nd ed., 2013. Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154410/ [Accessed: 2015-07-25].
[274] Koboldt DC, Steinberg KM, Larson DE, Wilson RK, Mardis ER: The next-generation
sequencing revolution and its impact on genomics. Cell. 2013;155:27–38. DOI:
10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.006
[275] Forbes SA, Bindal N, Bamford S, et al: COSMIC: Mining complete cancer genomes in
the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39:D945–50.
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq929
[276] Boyle AP, Araya CL, Brdlik C, et al: Comparative analysis of regulatory information
and circuits across distant species. Nature. 2014;512:453–6. DOI: 10.1038/nature13668
[277] Inaki K, Hillmer AM, Ukil L, et al: Transcriptional consequences of genomic structur‐
al aberrations in breast cancer. Genome Res. 2011;21:676–87. DOI: 10.1101/gr.
113225.110
[278] Zhang C-Z, Spektor A, Comils, et al: Chromothripsis from DNA damage in micronu‐
clei. Nature. 2015;522:179–84. DOI: 10.1038/nature14493
[279] Mardis ER: Genome sequencing and cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2012;22:1–6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2012.03.005
[280] Jones S, Anagnostou V, Lytle K, et al: Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mu‐
tation discovery and interpretation. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7:283ra53. DOI: 10.1126/
scitranslmed.aaa7161
[281] Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A: Disruptive technologies:

Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Glob‐
al Institute, May 2013. Available from: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/busi‐
ness_technology/disruptive_technologies [Accessed: 2015-08-10].
[282] Tang H, Zhao Z: Bioinformatics drives the applications of next-generation sequenc‐

ing in translational biomedical research. Methods. 2015;79–80:1–2. DOI: 10.1016/
j.ymeth.2015.04.035
[283] Stephens ZD, Lee SY, Faghri F, et al: Big Data: Astronomical or genomical? PLoS Bi‐
ol. 2015;13:e1002195. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002195

Intech NGS Imp PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intech NGS Imp PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intech NGS Imp PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Our authors are among the

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

Interested in publishing with us?

Next-Generation Sequencing — An Overview of the

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Keywords: Next-generation sequencing, tools, platforms, applications, omics

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) refers to the deep, high-throughput, in-parallel DNA

2. First-generation sequencing: A brief history

3.1. DNA and RNA library preparations for second-generation sequencing

3.2. NGS platforms

3.2.1. Roche 454 pyrosequencing

3.2.2. Illumina (Solexa) HiSeq and MiSeq sequencing

3.2.3. Sequencing by Oligonucleotide Ligation and Detection (SOLiD)

Supported Oligonucleotide Ligation and Detection (SOLiD) is a next-generation sequencer

3.2.4. DNA nanoball sequencing by BGI Retrovolocity

Complete Genomics (http://www.completegenomics.com) developed DNA nanoball sequenc‐

3.2.5. Ion torrent

Ion Torrent technology (http://www.iontorrent.com) was developed by the inventors of 454

4. Third-generation sequencing: Emerging technologies for single-

Third-generation single-molecule sequencing technologies have emerged to reduce the price

4.1. Single-molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing by pacific biosciences

Pacific Biosciences (http://www.pacificbiosciences.com) markets the PacBio RS II sequencer

4.2. Helicos sequencing by the genetic analysis system

4.3. Nanopore sequencing by Oxford Nanopore Technologies (MinION and PromethION)

4.4. NGS by electron microscopy

5. NGS service providers

Service provider Platforms DNA sequencing RNA-seq Methyl-seq Web address

BGI All +++ + + bgiamericas.com

Novogene Illumina +++ + + novogene.com

Macrogen Illumina +++ + + macrogen.com

CD Genomics Illumina +++ + + cd-genomics.com

Service provider Platforms DNA sequencing RNA-seq Methyl-seq Web address

SeqWright Genomic Illumina +++ + + seqwright.com/researchservices

EpigenDx Ion Torrent + epigendx.com

Centrillion Genomic Illumina +++ + centrillionbio.com

NXT-DX Illumina + + nxt-dx.com

AGRF*** Illumina +++ + + agrf.org.au

Broad Institute Illumina +++ + + genomics.broadinstitute.org

Illumina Illumina +++ + + illumina.com

Exiqon Illumina + exiqon.com

SEQLL Helicos +++ + + seqll.com

Eurofins Genomics Illumina +++ + eurofinsgenomics.eu

Millennium Science PacBioRS II +++ + mscience.com.au/view/

Oxford Nanopore MINion +++ + nanoporetech.com

Complete Genomics Nanoball arrays + + completegenomics.com

6. Performance of NGS platforms and sequencing errors

7. Bioinformatics: DNA and RNA data analysis and storage

1. Aligner, assembly, and postassembly tools

MUMmer aligner http://mummer.sourceforge.net

Bowtie aligner http://bowtie-bio.sourceforge.net/index.shtml

TopHat RNA-seq aligner https://ccb.jhu.edu/software/tophat/index.shtml

Anytag aligner http://sourceforge.net/projects/anytag/files/anytag2.0/

Soap de novo assembler http://soap.genomics.org.cn/soapdenovo.html

Allpaths-LG assembler http://www.broadinstitute.org/software/allpaths-lg/blog/

Celera assembler http://wgs-assembler.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

Velvet assembler https://www.ebi.ac.uk/~zerbino/velvet/

SPAdes assembler http://bioinf.spbau.ru/spades