Comparison of capture-based mtDNA sequencing performance between MGI and illumina sequencing platforms in various sample types

Mitochondrial genome abnormalities can lead to mitochondrial dysfunction, which in turn affects cellular biology and is closely associated with the development of various diseases. The demand for mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing has been increasing, and Illumina and MGI are two commonly used sequencing platforms for capture-based mtDNA sequencing. However, there is currently no systematic comparison of mtDNA sequencing performance between these two platforms. To address this gap, we compared the performance of capture-based mtDNA sequencing between Illumina's NovaSeq 6000 and MGI's DNBSEQ-T7 using tissue, peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC), formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, plasma, and urine samples.

In summary, the two platforms generally showed good consistency in capture-based mtDNA sequencing. However, it is necessary to consider the data preferences generated by two sequencing platforms when plasma and urine samples were analyzed.

Our analysis indicated a high degree of consistency between the two platforms in terms of sequencing quality, GC content, and coverage. In terms of data output, DNBSEQ-T7 showed higher rates of clean data and duplication compared to NovaSeq 6000. Conversely, the amount of mtDNA data obtained by per gigabyte sequencing data was significantly lower in DNBSEQ-T7 compared to NovaSeq 6000. In terms of detection mtDNA copy number, both platforms exhibited good consistency in all sample types. When it comes to detection of mtDNA mutations in tissue, FFPE, and PBMC samples, the two platforms also showed good consistency. However, when detecting mtDNA mutations in plasma and urine samples, significant differenceof themutation number detected was observed between the two platforms. For mtDNA sequencing of plasma and urine samples, a wider range of DNA fragment size distribution was found in NovaSeq 6000 when compared to DNBSEQ-T7. Additionally, two platforms exhibited different characteristics of mtDNA fragment end preference. Conclusions: In summary, the two platforms generally showed good consistency in capture-based mtDNA sequencing. However, it is necessary to consider the data preferences generated by two sequencing platforms when plasma and urine samples were analyzed.