Whole genome sequencing with AVITI and NovaSeq X Plus reveals comparable performance with contextual biases

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

ABSTRACT Element Biosciences’ avidity sequencing has emerged as a competing technology to Illumina’s short read sequencing platform. Prior benchmarks of avidity sequencing have not included the latest Illumina NovaSeq X/X Plus instruments with XLEAP chemistry. Here, we have run PCR-free whole genome sequencing on four human tumor cell lines using both Illumina NovaSeq X Plus and Element AVITI instruments. AVITI showed low duplication rates and reported higher base qualities, the latter contributed to improved mapping confidence and fewer spurious variant candidates. Both platforms were found to be highly comparable when benchmarking variant calling, with AVITI only providing a minor improvement on INDELs at lower coverages. Stratifying by genomic context revealed further differences, where AVITI genome coverage and variant calls were superior in high GC regions while being inferior in GC homopolymers. Error rate analysis highlighted further differences between the platforms, in particular AVITI in some instances displayed an increased error rate on read 2 related to short fragments. AVITI error rate was also found to be more stable downstream of repetitive regions, except for GC homopolymers. We further found that AVITI sequencing was sensitive to G-quadruplex motifs. Overall, despite these identified differences, both platforms performed highly comparable for variant analysis.
Full text 1,478 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
ABSTRACT Element Biosciences’ avidity sequencing has emerged as a competing technology to Illumina’s short read sequencing platform. Prior benchmarks of avidity sequencing have not included the latest Illumina NovaSeq X/X Plus instruments with XLEAP chemistry. Here, we have run PCR-free whole genome sequencing on four human tumor cell lines using both Illumina NovaSeq X Plus and Element AVITI instruments. AVITI showed low duplication rates and reported higher base qualities, the latter contributed to improved mapping confidence and fewer spurious variant candidates. Both platforms were found to be highly comparable when benchmarking variant calling, with AVITI only providing a minor improvement on INDELs at lower coverages. Stratifying by genomic context revealed further differences, where AVITI genome coverage and variant calls were superior in high GC regions while being inferior in GC homopolymers. Error rate analysis highlighted further differences between the platforms, in particular AVITI in some instances displayed an increased error rate on read 2 related to short fragments. AVITI error rate was also found to be more stable downstream of repetitive regions, except for GC homopolymers. We further found that AVITI sequencing was sensitive to G-quadruplex motifs. Overall, despite these identified differences, both platforms performed highly comparable for variant analysis. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00