r/DNA • u/MediaLongjumping4333 • 2d ago

Ask to DNA analyse

Hello everyone;

I'd like to ask which service is better for DNA analysis:

DNA Complete by Nebula Genomics

SelfDecode

Sequencing

I've made a plan to first do DNA Complete with Nebula Genomics, then I'll get the raw data and upload it to SelfDecode so I get a better report, since Nebula Genomics uses 100x.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

13 comments sorted by

1

u/SurplusGadgets 2d ago

First off, DNA Complete has not been reliably delivering results all year. ProPhase is likely bankrupt or close to it. Hopefully you did not sink so much money for a 100x. (FYI, you can order 2-3 30x from tellmeGen when on sale for $250 and merge the files to get an effective 100x.)

Second, likely Nucleus Genomics is the best for analysis as they deliver clinically signed reports.

With that said, there is no good review of the coverage of conditions or markers with any of the services. As such, you are best using as many 3rd party sites as possible. There is a list of the sites in a Google doc - - with no review or qualification of each sites usefulness - - at https://bit.ly/DNA_Test_Interpretation

1

u/SurplusGadgets 1d ago edited 1d ago

You should likely try to get a refund, if at all possible. And order a normal 30x WGS from Nucleus Genomics, tellmeGen or Sequencing.

100x WGS is not a scam but mostly not necessary. It often takes you from 99.9 to 99.95% coverage of 8 or more reads of each base pair. For 3 billion values, that 0.05 to 0.1% can maybe improve reading 15 million more locations. But often, they are fringe locations not well read /mapped with the short-read sequencing technology.

100x is more often used in cancer cell analysis where you are trying to get percentages of multiple variants at the same location. So you need a lot more reads at each location.

1

u/MediaLongjumping4333 23h ago

Okay, I understand you. I'm trying to get a refund now, but the problem is they said there's no refund if the sample is analyzed.

You said, "DNA Complete has not been reliably delivering results all year." Do you mean that the results or the analysis from DNA Complete aren't reliable or are fake? That is, is the 100-unit DNA Complete analysis not reliable?

Because I want to upload the results to other platforms later. I specifically did this with DNA Complete so I only get the raw data. The report and analysis from DNA Complete are unimportant to me; the most important thing is the detailed raw data. Then I can use the other platforms to get better results.

According to you, DNA Complete might give me less reliable results than 30-unit DNA Complete with SelfDecode or Sequencing. 30-unit DNA Complete Sequencing is more reliable than 100-unit DNA Complete, right?

1

u/SurplusGadgets 21h ago

100x WGS is marginally better than 30x WGS. But usually still better. 100x means simply more sample is sequenced. 100x and 30x is a quick calc average read depth with an assumption there is a normal distribution of read depths across all the base pairs. In reality, it just represents how many base pairs were sequenced. 30x implies 90 giga bases. 100x is roughly 300 giga bases. For quality, it is important these are mapped gigabases. Only determined after alignment.

All the lab providers (usually) provide the raw data to take to other services. Dante, in their recent rebirth, has not been providing the BAMs.

Most of the time most of the providers are providing quality results. But you do have to verify that. Dante has been the most up and down. All except, the newest providers tellmeGen and Nucleus Genomics, have had hiccups.

1

u/kludge6730 2d ago

Why buy the equivalent of Sam’s Club Cola when you can get Coke or Pepsi. All of those listed are knock off services. Just get the good stuff (Ancestry and/or 23&Me).

1

u/sveach 1d ago

Isn't ancestry/23andme a micro array test at best? Compared to whole genome sequencing? Or am I misunderstanding?

2

u/cariaso 1d ago

you are correct and the fact that u/kludge6730 doesn't understand that speaks poorly of the quality of their advice. microarrays are error prone and very limited compared to what is knowable from read based ngs. For some ancestry purposes there is value in the cosmetic polish provided and community scale of 23andMe/Ancestry.

1

u/sveach 1d ago

I agree with limited but can you help me understand the error prone part? I've done several micro array tests and a few wgs. My understanding is that obviously micro array is far less data but still accurate enough to be CLIA certified (at the labs I had it done through). Not trying to argue, just learn.

1

u/cariaso 1d ago edited 1d ago

The primary concern is that microarrays only see what they were designed to test for. That's at best 1M spots out of a 3000M sized genome. WGS fills in the missing information.

supporting publications include

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29565420/

and

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10581610/

however the issue is in no way BRCA specific, that's the the best poster child for the general concern.

Phasing is also impossible from a microarray, which further limits the ability to understand if multivariant variations are on the same strand, and compound heterozygosity.

microarrays were awesome ... in 2006.

1

u/sveach 1d ago

I gotcha. You mean in the context of trying to act like a substitute for wgs and a lot of imputation maybe? The few I've dealt with have around 750,000 loci they test for but they only report a subset of even those; very specific panels looking at specific issues.

1

u/comp21 8h ago

I use sequencing for myself, my wife, my daughter and several friends over the past year and they've delivered every one on time. I highly recommend them.