Comparing Next-Generation Sequencing Platforms for Parasite Detection in 2025: A Guide for Researchers and Developers

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is revolutionizing parasitology by moving diagnostics beyond traditional, low-throughput methods. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of modern NGS platforms—including Illumina, Oxford Nanopore, and PacBio—for detecting and characterizing protozoan and helminth infections. We explore foundational sequencing principles, detail methodological applications like metagenomic NGS (mNGS) and targeted sequencing, and offer troubleshooting strategies for workflow optimization. A critical validation and comparative analysis guides platform selection based on accuracy, throughput, cost, and specific parasitological applications, empowering researchers and drug development professionals to leverage these powerful tools for advanced diagnostics, outbreak surveillance, and drug discovery.

The NGS Revolution in Parasitology: Moving Beyond Microscopy

Parasitic diseases remain a significant global health challenge, affecting millions of people worldwide and causing substantial morbidity and mortality, particularly in underprivileged populations and low-income societies [1]. The accurate and timely diagnosis of these infections is crucial for effective treatment, control, and prevention. Traditional diagnostic methods have served as the cornerstone of parasitology for decades, but they present significant limitations that can impact patient care and public health outcomes. This article examines the critical diagnostic gap created by these conventional approaches and explores how next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are addressing these shortcomings in research settings.

The World Health Organization estimates that intestinal parasitic infections alone affect approximately 67.2 million people worldwide, accounting for 492,000 disability-adjusted life years [1]. This substantial disease burden underscores the critical importance of reliable diagnostic methods that can accurately detect and identify parasitic infections. For researchers and drug development professionals, understanding the limitations of existing diagnostic approaches is fundamental to advancing the field and developing more effective detection strategies.

Conventional Diagnostic Methods and Their Limitations

Traditional techniques for parasite detection primarily include microscopy, immunodiagnostic-based approaches, and conventional molecular assays such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [1]. While these methods have been invaluable in both clinical and research contexts, they suffer from several inherent constraints that limit their effectiveness, particularly in complex diagnostic scenarios.

Microscopic Examination

Microscopy has long been considered the gold standard for parasite detection, but it demonstrates notably low sensitivity, especially in cases of low parasite burden. For instance, the sensitivity of light microscopy for detecting Entamoeba histolytica ranges from just 10% to 40% [1]. This technique is highly dependent on the skill and experience of the technician, is time-consuming and labor-intensive, and requires specialized equipment [2]. Furthermore, microscopic examination often fails to differentiate between morphologically similar species, which is particularly problematic for helminth eggs that cannot be morphologically differentiated at the species level without additional culturing steps [3].

Immunodiagnostic Methods

Serological tests like enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) provide an alternative to microscopy but introduce their own limitations. The sensitivity of serologic testing for E. histolytica in acute disease ranges from 70% to 80% but increases to nearly 100% in patients with hepatic amoebiasis [1]. These assays are prone to cross-reactivity with antigens from different parasite species, potentially leading to false-positive results [2]. Additionally, they may fail to distinguish between past and current infections, limiting their utility in acute clinical settings and outbreak investigations.

Conventional Molecular Assays

Standard PCR methods offer improved specificity over microscopy and serology but require meticulously designed primers tailored to specific target parasites [2]. This primer design demands an in-depth understanding of the parasite's genetic makeup, making the process often time-consuming and expensive [2]. Traditional PCR also typically lacks the capacity for multiplexing, limiting researchers to targeting single or few pathogens per reaction and potentially missing co-infections or unexpected pathogens.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Traditional Parasite Detection Methods

Method	Sensitivity Limitations	Species Differentiation Capability	Multiplexing Capacity	Technical Challenges
Microscopy	Low (10-40% for E. histolytica) [1]	Limited; requires additional culturing for some helminths [3]	None	Labor-intensive; requires skilled technician [2]
Immunodiagnostics	Variable (70-80% for acute E. histolytica) [1]	Prone to cross-reactivity [2]	Limited	Cannot distinguish past vs. current infections [2]
Conventional PCR	Higher than microscopy but target-dependent	Good for specific targets	Low; requires multiple reactions	Primer design complex and time-consuming [2]

The NGS Approach: Bridging the Diagnostic Gap

Next-generation sequencing technologies have emerged as powerful tools that address many limitations of traditional diagnostic methods. NGS enables the comprehensive sequencing of millions of DNA fragments simultaneously, providing unprecedented insights into parasitic infections [1] [4]. This high-throughput approach has transformed parasitology research by enabling comprehensive pathogen detection without prior assumptions about the causative agents.

Key NGS Methodologies in Parasitology

Several NGS approaches have proven particularly valuable in parasite detection and characterization. Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) allows for unbiased sequencing of all nucleic acids in a sample, making it ideal for detecting unexpected or novel pathogens [1]. Targeted NGS approaches, such as metabarcoding, focus on specific genetic regions like the 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, enabling highly sensitive detection of multiple parasite species simultaneously [2]. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) provides complete genetic information of parasites, facilitating studies on genetic diversity, drug resistance mechanisms, and transmission patterns [1].

Table 2: NGS Methodologies and Their Research Applications in Parasitology

NGS Approach	Key Features	Primary Research Applications	Example Study Findings
Metagenomic NGS (mNGS)	Unbiased sequencing of all nucleic acids in sample [1]	Detection of unexpected pathogens; outbreak investigation [1]	Higher positive detection rate for ESKAPE pathogens and/or fungi (28.4% vs 16.3% with culture) [5]
Targeted Metagenomics (Metabarcoding)	Amplification of specific marker genes (e.g., 18S rRNA, ITS-2) [2]	Species identification; parasite community profiling [3]	Simultaneous detection of 11 parasite species with varying read abundance [2]
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)	Sequencing of entire parasite genomes [1]	Genetic diversity studies; drug resistance mechanism identification [1]	Understanding genetic interrelationships among parasites; identifying anti-parasitic drug resistances [1]

Featured Experimental Protocol: 18S rRNA Metabarcoding for Intestinal Parasites

A recent study published in Scientific Reports exemplifies the application of NGS in parasite detection research. The protocol aimed to optimize 18S rRNA metabarcoding for the simultaneous diagnosis of 11 intestinal parasite species, demonstrating how NGS methodologies can overcome limitations of traditional approaches [2].

Sample Preparation and Library Construction

The researchers cloned the 18S rDNA V9 region of 11 parasite species into plasmids, creating a standardized reference panel. The target parasites included Clonorchis sinensis, Entamoeba histolytica, Dibothriocephalus latus, Trichuris trichiura, Fasciola hepatica, Necator americanus, Paragonimus westermani, Taenia saginata, Giardia intestinalis, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Enterobius vermicularis [2]. Equal concentrations of these 11 plasmids were pooled, and amplicon NGS targeting the 18S rDNA V9 region was performed using the Illumina iSeq 100 platform. The selection of the V9 region was strategic, as it efficiently captures a broader range of eukaryotes on the Illumina sequencing platform [2].

For library preparation, researchers amplified the plasmids using primers targeting the 18S rRNA V9 region with attached adaptors for NGS: 1391F (5′-TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG GTACACACCGCCCGTC-3′) and EukBR (5′-GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAG TGATCCTTCTGCAGGTTCACCTAC-3′) [2]. The PCR amplification utilized KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix with the following cycling conditions: 95°C for 5 minutes, 30 cycles of 98°C for 30 seconds; 55°C for 30 seconds; 72°C for 30 seconds, and a final extension at 72°C for 5 minutes. A limited-cycle (8-cycle) amplification followed to add multiplexing indices and Illumina sequencing adapters [2].

Sequencing and Bioinformatic Analysis

The mixed amplicons were pooled and sequenced on an Illumina iSeq 100 system using the Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2 kit. For data analysis, the researchers employed Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology v2 (QIIME 2, 2023.2) to process the iSeq 100 data [2]. The workflow included demultiplexing and trimming low-quality sequence reads using Cutadapt (v4.5), followed by denoising, dereplication, and chimera filtering using DADA2 (v1.26) [2]. Taxonomic assignment of amplicon sequence variants utilized a custom database built from NCBI nucleotide sequences to encompass a broader range of parasite sequences compared to curated databases.

Key Findings and Optimization Insights

The analysis yielded 434,849 reads, successfully detecting all 11 parasite species, though with varying read abundances: Clonorchis sinensis (17.2%), Entamoeba histolytica (16.7%), Dibothriocephalus latus (14.4%), Trichuris trichiura (10.8%), Fasciola hepatica (8.7%), Necator americanus (8.5%), Paragonimus westermani (8.5%), Taenia saginata (7.1%), Giardia intestinalis (5.0%), Ascaris lumbricoides (1.7%), and Enterobius vermicularis (0.9%) [2]. The researchers identified that DNA secondary structures showed a negative association with output read numbers, and variations in amplicon PCR annealing temperature affected relative read abundances, providing crucial optimization parameters for future assay development.

NGS Workflow and Technical Considerations

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for next-generation sequencing in parasite detection research, from sample preparation to data analysis:

NGS Workflow for Parasite Detection

Critical Optimization Parameters

Successful implementation of NGS for parasite detection requires careful optimization of several technical parameters. The aforementioned study demonstrated that annealing temperature during amplicon PCR significantly influences the relative abundance of output reads for each parasite [2]. Additionally, DNA secondary structures were found to negatively associate with read numbers, suggesting that bioinformatic correction algorithms may be necessary for accurate quantification. Background amplification of host and other eukaryotic DNA can compete with target protozoan sequences, potentially affecting detection sensitivity [6]. Establishing appropriate thresholds for true positives is also essential, as low numbers of target sequences may appear in negative controls [6].

Comparative Performance Data: NGS vs. Traditional Methods

Research directly comparing NGS with conventional diagnostic methods demonstrates the superior capabilities of the former in various applications. In veterinary parasitology, NGS-based nemabiome metabarcoding has proven invaluable for differentiating stronglyle species that are morphologically identical as eggs, providing crucial information for anthelmintic resistance management and epidemiological studies [3]. A study on kidney transplantation patients found that for organ preservation fluids, the positive rate of conventional culture was significantly lower than that of mNGS (24.8% vs 47.5%) [5]. Similarly, for recipient wound drainage fluids, conventional culture showed a positivity rate of just 2.1% compared to 27.0% with mNGS [5].

Table 3: Direct Comparison of Detection Rates Between Conventional Culture and mNGS

Sample Type	Conventional Culture Positive Rate	mNGS Positive Rate	Statistical Significance
Organ Preservation Fluids	24.8% (35/141)	47.5% (67/141)	p < 0.05 [5]
Recipient Wound Drainage Fluids	2.1% (3/141)	27.0% (38/141)	p < 0.05 [5]
ESKAPE Pathogens and/or Fungi	16.3% (23/141)	28.4% (40/141)	p < 0.05 [5]

Research Reagent Solutions for NGS-Based Parasite Detection

Implementing NGS methodologies for parasite detection requires specific reagents and tools. The following table outlines key research reagent solutions and their functions in typical NGS workflows for parasitology research.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for NGS-Based Parasite Detection

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Notes
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolation of DNA/RNA from diverse sample types	Specialized kits (e.g., Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil) effective for parasite DNA extraction [2]
18S rRNA V9 Region Primers	Amplification of target region for metabarcoding	1391F and EukBR primers with adapter sequences enable NGS library preparation [2]
PCR Amplification Master Mix	High-fidelity DNA amplification	KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix provides high fidelity for accurate sequence representation [2]
Sequencing Kits	Library sequencing on NGS platforms	Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2 kit suitable for targeted metabarcoding studies [2]
Bioinformatic Tools	Data processing and analysis	QIIME 2, Cutadapt, DADA2, and custom databases essential for sequence processing [2]

The diagnostic gap created by traditional parasite detection methods represents a significant challenge in both clinical management and research contexts. Limitations in sensitivity, species differentiation capability, and multiplexing capacity constrain our understanding of parasitic diseases and hinder effective control strategies. Next-generation sequencing technologies offer powerful alternatives that overcome these limitations, enabling comprehensive parasite detection, species identification, and genetic characterization.

For researchers and drug development professionals, NGS platforms provide unprecedented insights into parasite biodiversity, transmission dynamics, and drug resistance mechanisms. The ability to simultaneously screen for multiple parasite species without prior assumptions about the causative agents represents a paradigm shift in diagnostic approaches. While challenges remain in standardization, bioinformatic analysis, and cost accessibility, the continued refinement and adoption of NGS methodologies promise to significantly advance parasitology research and contribute to improved global control of parasitic diseases.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have revolutionized parasite detection and genomic research, enabling scientists to decode complex pathogen genomes with unprecedented resolution. These technologies fall into two primary categories: short-read sequencing (exemplified by Illumina and Ion Torrent platforms) and long-read sequencing (pioneered by Oxford Nanopore Technologies [ONT] and Pacific Biosciences [PacBio]). Each platform employs distinct biochemical principles for detecting nucleotide incorporation, leading to characteristic strengths and limitations in output quality, read length, and application suitability [7] [8].

For parasitic disease research, where pathogens often possess complex genomes with repetitive elements and atypical genomic structures, platform selection critically impacts detection sensitivity, species resolution, and functional insight [1] [9]. This guide provides an objective comparison of dominant NGS platforms, supported by experimental data from parasite-focused studies, to inform researchers and drug development professionals in selecting optimal methodologies for their specific applications.

Platform Comparison: Technical Specifications and Performance Metrics

The following tables summarize the core technical characteristics and performance metrics of major NGS platforms, based on aggregated data from recent comparative studies.

Table 1: Core Technical Specifications of Major NGS Platforms

Platform/Technology	Representative Instruments	Read Length	Typical Run Time	Primary Detection Method
Illumina (Short-read)	MiSeq, NextSeq	75-300 bp [7]	1-3 days [7]	Fluorescently labeled reversible-terminator nucleotides [10]
Ion Torrent (Short-read)	PGM, S5	~200-400 bp [11]	Hours to a day [11]	Semiconductor detection of pH changes [11]
Oxford Nanopore (Long-read)	MinION, GridION	5-20+ kb [7] [8]	< 24 hours to 72 hrs [7] [12]	Nanopore-based electrical current modulation [8]
PacBio (Long-read)	Sequel II, Revio	Several kb to >10 kb [7] [8]	Hours to days [8]	Single-Molecule Real-Time (SMRT) fluorescence [8]

Table 2: Comparative Performance in Pathogen Detection Studies

Performance Metric	Illumina	Oxford Nanopore	Notes and Context
Per-base Raw Accuracy	>99.9% [7]	~99% with latest chemistry [8]	Nanopore accuracy has improved with R10+ pores & Dorado basecaller.
Sensitivity in LRTI Dx	71.8% (average) [7]	71.9% (average) [7]	Meta-analysis of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) studies.
Specificity in LRTI Dx	42.9% - 95% [7]	28.6% - 100% [7]	Specificity range varies widely across studies.
Strengths	Superior genome coverage, high per-base accuracy [7]	Rapid turnaround, superior sensitivity for Mycobacterium [7]	ONT offers versatility and real-time sequencing capability [8].
Cost & Throughput	High throughput, relatively low cost per base [7]	Lower upfront cost (MinION), portable [8]	PacBio HiFi is cost-intensive but offers high accuracy [8].

Experimental Approaches and Workflows

Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs) for Antimalarial Resistance

Objective: To compare the performance of Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq platforms for targeted sequencing of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers using TADs [10].

Methodology:

• Gene Targets: Six antimalarial drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, pfcytochrome b)
• Sample Types: Whole blood samples (N=20) and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) blood spots (N=5) from patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria
• Library Preparation: Target amplicons were amplified via PCR for the six genes and pooled across samples
• Sequencing: Libraries were sequenced on both Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq platforms
• Validation: Variant calls were compared against conventional Sanger sequencing as the reference standard
• Analysis Metrics: Coverage (reads per amplicon), sequencing accuracy, variant accuracy, false positive/negative rates, and alternative allele detection in artificial mixed infections [10]

Key Findings:

• Both platforms demonstrated 99.83% sequencing accuracy and 99.59% variant accuracy compared to Sanger sequencing
• Illumina MiSeq provided significantly higher coverage (mean 28,886 reads/amplicon) than Ion Torrent PGM (mean 1,754 reads/amplicon)
• Both platforms could detect minor alleles down to 1% density in artificial mixtures at 500X coverage
• The methods enabled multiplexing of 96 samples per run, reducing costs by 86% compared to Sanger sequencing [10]

16S rRNA Profiling of Respiratory Microbiomes

Objective: To compare Illumina NextSeq and ONT MinION platforms for 16S rRNA gene sequencing of respiratory microbial communities, with relevance to parasite detection in complex samples [12].

Methodology:

• Sample Types: 34 respiratory samples (20 from ventilator-associated pneumonia patients, 14 from a swine model)
• Platform-Specific Protocols:
  • Illumina: Targeted amplification of V3-V4 hypervariable region (∼300 bp) using QIAseq 16S/ITS Region Panel, sequenced on NextSeq (2×300 bp)
  • Nanopore: Full-length 16S rRNA gene amplification (∼1,500 bp) using ONT 16S Barcoding Kit, sequenced on MinION Mk1C with R10.4.1 flow cell
• Bioinformatic Processing:
  • Illumina: nf-core/ampliseq pipeline with DADA2 for error correction and SILVA 138.1 database for taxonomy
  • Nanopore: Dorado basecaller (v7.3.11) and EPI2ME Labs 16S Workflow with the same reference database
• Analysis: Alpha/beta diversity, taxonomic profiling, and differential abundance analysis [12]

Key Findings:

• Illumina captured greater species richness, while ONT provided superior species-level resolution for dominant taxa
• ONT overrepresented certain taxa (e.g., Enterococcus, Klebsiella) while underrepresenting others (e.g., Prevotella, Bacteroides)
• Community evenness was comparable between platforms
• ONT's performance improved with longer sequencing durations (up to 72 hours) [12]

Figure 1: Core NGS Workflows for Pathogen Detection - This diagram illustrates the key steps in metagenomic (mNGS) and targeted (tNGS) next-generation sequencing approaches, highlighting the methodological divergence after nucleic acid extraction.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NGS in Parasitology

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Products/Protocols
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality DNA/RNA from diverse sample types	QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit, MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit, Sputum DNA Isolation Kit [13] [12]
Library Preparation Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries with platform-specific adapters	Illumina Nextera XT, ONT 16S Barcoding Kit, Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit [11] [12]
Target Enrichment Panels	Selective amplification or capture of target pathogen sequences	Respiratory Pathogen Detection Kit (198 primers), Custom probe panels for parasite genomes [14] [13]
Positive Controls	Monitoring assay performance and sensitivity	QIAseq 16S/ITS Smart Control, Synthetic DNA controls [12]
Barcoding/Indexing Kits	Multiplexing samples to increase throughput and reduce costs	QIAseq 16S/ITS Index Kit, ONT Native Barcoding Kit [12]
BmKn2	BmKn2 Scorpion Venom Peptide|For Research	BmKn2 is a cationic, α-helical antimicrobial peptide for research into cancer therapeutics, multidrug-resistant bacteria, and antiviral agents. For Research Use Only.
Ibuprofen potassium	Ibuprofen Potassium	Ibuprofen potassium for research applications. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO) and is not intended for diagnostic or personal use.

Application in Parasite Research: Case Studies and Data Interpretation

Genomic Surveillance of Antimalarial Drug Resistance

Targeted NGS has proven particularly valuable for monitoring molecular markers of antimalarial drug resistance in Plasmodium falciparum. The well-defined resistance markers for chloroquine (pfcrt), antifolates (pfdhfr, pfdhps), and artemisinins (pfkelch) make this pathogen ideally suited for tNGS approaches [10]. In a study from Ubon Ratchathani, TADs on both Ion Torrent and Illumina platforms successfully identified complex haplotypes in pfcrt, with the dominant haplotype shifting from 58% prevalence in 2014 to 88% in 2017 samples, demonstrating the utility of NGS for tracking resistance dynamics [10].

Resolving Complex Parasite Genomes

Long-read sequencing technologies excel in characterizing complex genomic features of parasites that are difficult to resolve with short-read technologies. For Leishmania species, which exhibit remarkable genomic plasticity including mosaic aneuploidy and gene amplification, ONT and PacBio platforms have enabled complete assembly of repetitive regions and structural variants [9]. These features are crucial for understanding drug resistance mechanisms and virulence factors in these parasites. Similarly, ONT's ability to sequence full-length 16S rRNA genes provides superior species-level resolution for identifying bacterial co-infections in parasitic diseases [12].

Metagenomic versus Targeted Approaches for Polymicrobial Infections

A comprehensive comparison of mNGS and tNGS for lower respiratory infections revealed distinct performance characteristics relevant to parasite detection. While mNGS identified the highest number of species (80 species vs. 71 for capture-based tNGS and 65 for amplification-based tNGS), capture-based tNGS demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (93.17%) and sensitivity (99.43%) when benchmarked against comprehensive clinical diagnosis [13]. Amplification-based tNGS showed poor sensitivity for gram-positive (40.23%) and gram-negative bacteria (71.74%) but required fewer resources, suggesting its utility as a screening tool in resource-limited settings [13].

The choice between short-read and long-read sequencing technologies for parasite research depends heavily on the specific research objectives, required resolution, and available resources.

Short-read platforms (Illumina, Ion Torrent) remain the gold standard for applications requiring maximal base-level accuracy, high throughput, and cost-effectiveness for large sample sizes. They are ideal for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) detection, variant calling, and targeted sequencing of well-characterized resistance markers, as demonstrated in antimalarial resistance monitoring [10]. However, their limited read length challenges assembly of complex repetitive regions common in parasite genomes.

Long-read platforms (ONT, PacBio) provide superior resolution for complex genomic regions, structural variants, and full-length gene sequencing, enabling species-level identification and assembly of challenging genomes like Leishmania [9]. ONT's portability and rapid turnaround time facilitate real-time field surveillance, crucial for outbreak response. While historically limited by higher error rates, recent chemistry and basecalling improvements have substantially enhanced accuracy [8].

For comprehensive pathogen detection in complex samples, hybrid approaches leveraging both technologies may provide optimal results, using short-read data for accuracy and long-read data for scaffolding and resolving repetitive elements. As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, the integration of these complementary platforms will further empower parasite research and drug development initiatives.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have revolutionized parasitology research, enabling the precise identification of pathogens, investigation of host-parasite interactions, and tracking of drug resistance mechanisms. Selecting the appropriate sequencing platform is crucial for designing effective studies, as each technology offers distinct advantages in read length, accuracy, throughput, and cost. This guide provides an objective comparison of three major platforms—Illumina, Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), and PacBio—focusing on their performance characteristics and applications in parasite detection and analysis. By examining experimental data and technical specifications, this overview equips researchers with the information needed to select the optimal platform for their specific research requirements in parasitology and drug development.

Technology Comparison at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core characteristics of the three major sequencing platforms, highlighting key differences in their sequencing principles, output, and typical applications.

Table 1: Core sequencing platform characteristics

Feature	Illumina	Oxford Nanopore (ONT)	PacBio
Sequencing Principle	Short-read; sequencing by synthesis with fluorescently labeled nucleotides [1]	Long-read; nanopore electrical signal detection [15]	Long-read; Single Molecule Real-Time (SMRT) with fluorescent detection in zero-mode waveguides (ZMWs) [15]
Typical Read Length	50-300 bp [16]	20 kb to >4 Mb (ultra-long reads) [17]	10-20 kb (HiFi reads) [15]
Raw Read Accuracy	>99.9% (Q30) [18]	~99% (Q20) with latest chemistries [19] [17]	>99.9% (Q30) for HiFi reads [17]
Typical Run Time	1-3 days [13]	72 hours (standard), 24 hours (rapid) [17]	24 hours [17]
Key Strengths	High throughput, low per-base cost, well-established bioinformatics tools	Portability, real-time data analysis, ultra-long reads, direct RNA/DNA sequencing	Very high accuracy, long reads, simultaneous epigenetic modification detection
Common Parasitology Applications	Targeted sequencing (amplicon & capture-based), metagenomic surveys, population genetics	Rapid field surveillance, whole-genome sequencing, structural variant detection, direct RNA sequencing	High-quality genome assembly, discovery of structural variants, haplotype phasing

Performance Data in Microbial and Parasitic Research

Empirical data from recent studies directly comparing these platforms provide critical insights for platform selection. Performance varies significantly based on the specific application, such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing for microbiome studies or targeted methods for pathogen detection.

Taxonomic Resolution in 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing

A 2025 study comparing 16S rRNA gene sequencing for gut microbiota analysis demonstrated clear differences in species-level classification performance.

Table 2: Species-level classification performance in rabbit gut microbiota (2025 study) [19]

Platform	Target Region	Species-Level Classification Rate	Notes
Illumina MiSeq	V3-V4 hypervariable region	48%	Lower resolution due to shorter read length
PacBio Sequel II	Full-length 16S rRNA gene	63%	Improved resolution with full-length sequencing
ONT MinION	Full-length 16S rRNA gene	76%	Highest resolution among the three platforms

While ONT showed the highest technical resolution, a significant limitation across all platforms was that many species-level classifications were assigned ambiguous labels like "uncultured_bacterium," highlighting database limitations rather than technological failures [19].

Diagnostic Performance in Respiratory Infection Pathogen Detection

A 2025 clinical study on lower respiratory tract infections compared different sequencing approaches, providing valuable data on pathogen detection capabilities relevant to parasitology research.

Table 3: Diagnostic performance of different NGS approaches in lower respiratory infections [13]

Sequencing Method	Total Species Detected	Accuracy vs. Clinical Diagnosis	Key Findings
Metagenomic NGS (mNGS)	80 species	Not specified	Highest number of species identified; suited for rare/novel pathogen detection
Capture-based tNGS	71 species	93.17%	Best overall diagnostic performance; ideal for routine diagnostics
Amplification-based tNGS	65 species	Lower sensitivity for bacteria	Faster results with lower resource requirements; lower sensitivity for Gram-positive (40.23%) and Gram-negative (71.74%) bacteria

This study demonstrates that targeted NGS (tNGS) methods, particularly capture-based approaches, can provide superior diagnostic accuracy compared to unbiased metagenomic sequencing, though with fewer total species detected [13].

Experimental Protocols for Parasite Detection

Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) Workflow

The mNGS protocol enables comprehensive, unbiased detection of parasites and other pathogens in clinical samples without prior knowledge of the causative agent [13] [20].

Figure 1: mNGS workflow for comprehensive pathogen detection.

Key Steps and Reagents:

• Sample Collection & Nucleic Acid Extraction: Collect bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), tissue, or stool samples in sterile containers. Extract total nucleic acids using kits such as the QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit (Qiagen) or MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit (Magen), which efficiently lyse diverse pathogens including hardy parasite cysts [13] [20].

• Host Depletion: Treat samples with Benzonase and Tween20 to degrade human DNA and enrich for microbial sequences, significantly improving detection sensitivity for low-abundance parasites [13].

• Library Preparation: Fragment purified DNA, followed by adapter ligation and amplification. For RNA viruses or parasite transcripts, include ribosomal RNA depletion and reverse transcription steps [13].

• Sequencing: Process libraries on Illumina (e.g., NextSeq 550Dx) or Nanopore (MinION) platforms. Illumina typically generates 75-150 bp reads, while ONT produces long reads spanning full-length parasite genes [13] [21].

• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw data through quality filtering, adapter trimming, and host sequence subtraction. Classify microbial reads using curated databases such as the Parasite Genome Identification Platform (PGIP), which contains 280 quality-filtered parasite genomes for accurate taxonomic assignment [20].

Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (tNGS) Using Molecular Inversion Probes

Targeted NGS approaches like Molecular Inversion Probes (MIPs) enrich specific parasite sequences before sequencing, improving sensitivity and reducing cost compared to mNGS [18].

Figure 2: Targeted sequencing workflow using molecular inversion probes.

Key Steps and Reagents:

• MIP Design: Design single-stranded DNA probes with target-specific arms flanking a universal linker sequence. MIPs can multiplex >10,000 probes in a single reaction, covering diverse parasite genomes, virulence factors, and drug-resistance markers [18].

• Hybridization & Gap-Fill: Incubate MIP pool with sample DNA. Probes hybridize to complementary target regions, and DNA polymerase extends across the gap using the target sequence as a template [18].

• Ligation: DNA ligase (e.g., Ampligase) seals the nicks, creating circular DNA molecules containing the captured parasite sequences [18].

• Exonuclease Treatment: Add exonuclease I and III to degrade remaining linear DNA, enriching for circularized MIP products while reducing non-target background [18].

• Amplification & Sequencing: Amplify circularized templates with universal primers containing platform-specific adapters and barcodes for multiplexing. Sequence on Illumina (MiniSeq) or Nanopore platforms, requiring only ~0.1 million reads per sample for sensitive detection [18] [13].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below outlines key reagents and kits used in parasite sequencing workflows, with their specific functions in the experimental pipeline.

Table 4: Essential research reagents for parasite sequencing workflows

Reagent/Kit	Function	Application Context
QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit (Qiagen)	Efficient lysis and purification of pathogen nucleic acids from clinical samples	mNGS library prep; effective for tough parasite cysts [13]
DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (QIAGEN)	Optimized DNA extraction from complex, inhibitor-rich samples like soil or stool	16S rRNA sequencing; parasite egg detection in environmental samples [19]
Oxford Nanopore 16S Barcoding Kit	Amplification and barcoding of full-length 16S rRNA gene for multiplexing	Microbiome studies; analysis of parasite-induced dysbiosis [19] [12]
Respiratory Pathogen Detection Kit (KingCreate)	Amplification-based tNGS with 198 microorganism-specific primers	Targeted detection of parasite co-infections in respiratory samples [13]
SMRTbell Prep Kit 3.0 (PacBio)	Library preparation for HiFi sequencing of long DNA fragments	Full-length parasite gene sequencing and genome assembly [16]
Parasite Genome Identification Platform	Curated database of 280 parasite genomes for taxonomic classification	Bioinformatic parasite identification from mNGS/tNGS data [20]

The choice between Illumina, Oxford Nanopore, and PacBio platforms for parasite research depends heavily on the specific study objectives, required resolution, and available resources. Illumina remains the workhorse for high-throughput targeted sequencing and metagenomic surveys where cost-effectiveness is paramount. Oxford Nanopore excels in rapid field deployment, real-time analysis, and detecting structural variants through ultra-long reads. PacBio's HiFi sequencing provides the gold standard for accurate long-read data, ideal for genome assembly and detecting genetic variations.

For comprehensive pathogen detection without prior assumptions, mNGS on Illumina or ONT platforms offers the broadest coverage. For sensitive detection of specific parasites in complex samples, targeted approaches like MIPs or capture-based tNGS provide superior performance. As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, these platforms will further empower researchers to tackle challenging questions in parasite biology, host-pathogen interactions, and drug development.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized infectious disease research by providing a powerful, high-throughput tool for pathogen detection, genotyping, and drug resistance screening. For researchers and drug development professionals working with parasites and other complex pathogens, NGS offers unparalleled advantages over traditional diagnostic methods, enabling a more comprehensive and precise approach to understanding and combating infectious diseases [22] [1].

Core Advantages of NGS in Pathogen Research

The transition from traditional methods to NGS represents a paradigm shift in diagnostic and research capabilities. The table below summarizes the key advantages NGS holds over conventional techniques.

Table 1: Comparison of Pathogen Detection Methods

Feature	Traditional Methods (Microscopy/Culture)	PCR/Multiplex PCR	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Throughput	Low	Moderate	Ultra-high (millions of fragments in parallel) [4] [23]
Pathogen Hypothesis	Required	Required	Unbiased; no prior hypothesis needed [24]
Sensitivity	Low (e.g., 10-40% for some parasites) [1]	High for targeted agents	High, capable of detecting low-frequency variants (<1%) [25] [23]
Detection Scope	Limited to cultivable/visible pathogens	Limited to predefined primers/probes [22]	Comprehensive; can discover novel pathogens [22] [26]
Typing & Resistance	Phenotypic testing possible but slow	Limited to known resistance genes	Comprehensive genotyping and detection of known/novel resistance mechanisms [22] [1]
Turnaround Time	Days to weeks	Hours to days	Days (rapidly improving) [4]

Comparative Performance of NGS Platforms

Selecting an appropriate NGS platform is critical for research outcomes. The choice often involves a trade-off between read length, accuracy, and cost. The following table compares the characteristics of major short-read and long-read sequencing technologies.

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of NGS Platform Characteristics

Platform/Technology	Read Length	Key Principle	Key Applications	Considerations
Illumina (SBS)	Short (50-600 bp) [27]	Sequencing-by-Synthesis with reversible dye-terminators [27]	Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS), Targeted Sequencing, RNA-Seq [26] [23]	High accuracy (>99%); industry standard; higher cost for WGS [4] [27]
Ion Torrent	Short (200-400 bp) [27]	Semiconductor sequencing detecting H+ ions [27]	Targeted sequencing, WGS	Faster run times; may struggle with homopolymer regions [27]
Oxford Nanopore	Long (avg. 10,000-30,000 bp) [27]	Electrical detection of nucleic acids via protein nanopores [27]	Whole Genome Sequencing, Metagenomics, Structural variant detection	Real-time sequencing; portable; higher error rate requires robust bioinformatics [4] [27] [25]
PacBio (SMRT)	Long (avg. 10,000-25,000 bp) [27]	Real-time sequencing in zero-mode waveguides (ZMWs) [27]	De novo genome assembly, Epigenetics, Complex region resolution	Lower throughput; higher cost per sample [27]

Recent experimental data directly compares the performance of these platforms. A 2025 study compared four NGS platforms—Illumina iSeq100, Illumina MiSeq, MGI DNBSeq-G400, and Oxford Nanopore Mk1C MinION—for detecting drug resistance mutations in HIV, HBV, HCV, SARS-CoV-2, and Tuberculosis samples [25]. The study demonstrated a high concordance for majority and minority variants across all platforms. However, Nanopore technology was noted to report a higher number of minority mutations (those with a frequency below 20%), which may reflect its different error profile or sensitivity [25]. This highlights the importance of understanding platform-specific performance when analyzing minority variants in quasispecies populations, such as those found in viruses and parasites.

Experimental Protocols for NGS-Based Pathogen Analysis

Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) for Pathogen Detection

Metagenomic NGS allows for the unbiased detection of all pathogens in a sample without prior culturing or specific hypothesis, making it ideal for diagnosing unknown or mixed infections [24] [28].

Detailed Workflow:

• Sample Collection & Nucleic Acid Extraction: Collect relevant clinical sample (e.g., blood, BALF, tissue). Extract total DNA/RNA using commercial kits (e.g., TIANamp Micro DNA Kit). The choice of extracting DNA, RNA, or both is critical for a comprehensive pathogen profile [24].
• Library Preparation: Fragment the nucleic acids mechanically (sonication) or enzymatically. Ligate platform-specific adapter sequences to the fragments. These adapters allow the fragments to bind to the sequencer and serve as priming sites. Optional amplification is performed to generate sufficient material [4] [23]. For multiplexing, unique index barcodes are added to samples from different sources [1] [23].
• Sequencing: Load the prepared library onto the chosen NGS platform (e.g., Illumina, Nanopore) for massively parallel sequencing [4].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Quality Control & Preprocessing: Use tools like FastQC and Trimmomatic to remove low-quality reads and adapter sequences [28].
  • Host Depletion: Map reads to a host reference genome (e.g., GRCh38) using Bowtie2 and remove aligned reads to enrich for pathogen sequences [28].
  • Pathogen Identification: Classify the remaining reads against curated pathogen databases (e.g., using Kraken2) or perform de novo assembly to identify unknown organisms [28]. Platforms like the Parasite Genome Identification Platform (PGIP) automate this process with a dedicated, quality-controlled parasite genome database [28].

The following diagram illustrates the core logical workflow of mNGS analysis:

Diagram 1: mNGS Pathogen Detection Workflow

Targeted NGS for Drug Resistance Screening

Targeted NGS focuses on specific genomic regions associated with drug resistance, providing deep coverage that enables the detection of low-frequency minority variants that can lead to treatment failure [22] [25].

Detailed Workflow:

• Sample Preparation: Extract DNA/RNA from the pathogen of interest.
• Target Amplification: Using PCR, amplify the specific genes known to harbor resistance mutations. For example, in tuberculosis, this could target genes like rpoB (rifampin resistance) and katG (isoniazid resistance). Multiplex PCR assays can cover multiple regions simultaneously. Commercially available kits like the DeepChek assays are designed for this purpose for various pathogens [25].
• Library Preparation: Pool the resulting amplicons. The library can be prepared similarly to the mNGS workflow, often involving fragmentation (though sometimes amplicons are used directly), adapter ligation, and indexing [25].
• Sequencing & Analysis: Sequence the library, typically using high-accuracy short-read platforms like Illumina to ensure confident variant calling. Bioinformatic analysis involves:
  • Alignment: Map reads to a reference genome of the pathogen.
  • Variant Calling: Identify mutations compared to the reference using tools like DeepVariant [26].
  • Interpretation: Annotate variants using databases to determine their association with drug resistance [25].

The diagram below outlines the key steps in this targeted approach.

Diagram 2: Targeted NGS for Resistance Screening

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of NGS-based pathogen research relies on a suite of reliable reagents and software tools. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments and the broader field.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for NGS-Based Pathogen Research

Item	Function	Example Products / Tools
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	Isolate high-quality DNA/RNA from diverse clinical samples.	Viral NA Large Volume kit (Roche) [25], TIANamp Micro DNA Kit [24]
Targeted Amplification Assays	Amplify specific genomic regions for resistance screening.	DeepChek Assays (HIV, HBV, HCV, TB, SARS-CoV-2) [25]
Library Prep Kits	Fragment, end-repair, A-tail, and ligate adapters for sequencing.	DeepChek NGS Library Prep Kit [25], Platform-specific kits (Illumina)
Sequence Analysis Software	For quality control, alignment, variant calling, and reporting.	DeepChek Software [25], PGIP (Parasite Genome ID Platform) [28]
Curated Genomic Databases	Reference for accurate pathogen identification and typing.	PGIP Curated Parasite Database [28], NCBI, WormBase, VEuPathDB [28]
Phenazolam	Phenazolam, CAS:87213-50-1, MF:C17H12BrClN4, MW:387.7 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
ethyl citronellate	ethyl citronellate, CAS:26728-44-9, MF:C12H22O2, MW:198.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In conclusion, NGS technologies provide researchers and drug developers with a powerful, multifaceted toolkit that surpasses traditional methods in scope, sensitivity, and depth of information. The ability to comprehensively detect pathogens, precisely type them, and screen for drug resistance markers in a single assay positions NGS as an indispensable technology for advancing infectious disease research and personalized treatment strategies.

Implementing NGS for Parasite Detection: From mNGS to Targeted Approaches

Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) represents a paradigm shift in diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease research. This culture-independent, hypothesis-free approach enables the comprehensive detection of pathogens—including bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites—by sequencing all nucleic acids in a clinical sample and comparing them against microbial databases [29]. Unlike targeted molecular methods that require prior suspicion of specific pathogens, mNGS offers the unique advantage of identifying unexpected, novel, or co-infecting organisms, making it particularly valuable for diagnosing complex infections where conventional tests fail [30] [29]. As sequencing technologies advance and costs decline, mNGS is increasingly transitioning from research settings to clinical laboratories, offering researchers and drug development professionals a powerful tool for pathogen discovery, outbreak investigation, and antimicrobial resistance surveillance. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of mNGS performance against alternative diagnostic methods, supported by experimental data and technical specifications to inform platform selection for parasite detection research and broader infectious disease applications.

Performance Comparison: mNGS Versus Established Diagnostic Methods

Diagnostic Accuracy Across Infection Types

Extensive clinical studies have validated the diagnostic performance of mNGS across various infection types and sample matrices. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from recent investigations:

Table 1: Diagnostic Performance of mNGS Across Different Infection Types

Infection Type	Comparison Method	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Area Under Curve (AUC)	Sample Size	Reference
Spinal Infections	Tissue Culture Technique	81	75	0.85	770 patients	[31]
Tuberculosis	Culture	66.7	97.1	N/A	70 patients	[32]
Tuberculosis	Xpert MTB/RIF	76.9	N/A	N/A	19 patients	[32]
Tuberculosis	Real-time PCR	92.31	100	N/A	556 samples	[33]
Lower Respiratory Tract Infections	Traditional Methods	86.7% positive rate	N/A	N/A	165 patients	[30]

The data demonstrates that mNGS consistently outperforms conventional culture methods in sensitivity while maintaining high specificity. In spinal infection diagnosis, mNGS showed markedly higher sensitivity (81%) compared to tissue culture technique (34%), though with moderately lower specificity (75% versus 93%) [31]. For tuberculosis detection, mNGS demonstrated superior sensitivity (66.7%) to culture (36.1%) and comparable sensitivity to Xpert MTB/RIF (76.9% versus 61.5%) [32]. A large-scale study on tuberculosis diagnosis found nearly perfect agreement between mNGS and real-time PCR, with 98.38% overall agreement and a kappa value of 0.896, indicating that both molecular methods perform exceptionally well for Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection [33].

Advantages in Complex Diagnostic Scenarios

mNGS provides particular value in diagnostically challenging scenarios. In lower respiratory tract infections, mNGS showed significantly higher positive detection rates (86.7%) compared to traditional methods (41.8%), with special advantage in detecting polymicrobial infections and rare pathogens [30]. The technology identified 29 pathogen species missed by conventional methods, including non-tuberculous mycobacteria, Prevotella, anaerobic bacteria, and various viruses [30]. This comprehensive detection capability directly impacts patient management, with one study reporting that mNGS results led to treatment modifications in 72.13% of patients, including antibiotic reduction in 32.73% of cases [30].

Comparison with Emerging Targeted NGS

Targeted NGS (tNGS) has emerged as an alternative approach that uses amplification or probe capture to enrich for predefined pathogen targets before sequencing. A prospective study comparing tNGS and mNGS in lower respiratory tract infections found no statistically significant difference in overall sensitivity (74.75% vs 78.64%) or specificity (81.82% vs 93.94%) between the two methods [34]. However, tNGS demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for fungal detection (27.94% vs 17.65%) and successfully identified cases of Pneumocystis jirovecii that were missed by other methods [34]. The tNGS approach offers advantages including simultaneous DNA/RNA detection, lower cost, reduced host DNA interference, and easier workflow standardization [34].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standard mNGS Workflow for Pathogen Detection

The standard mNGS workflow consists of multiple critical steps that influence downstream results:

Table 2: Key Steps in mNGS Laboratory Protocol

Step	Description	Common Kits/Reagents	Purpose
Sample Processing	Volume: 200-300 µL of BALF, CSF, blood, or tissue homogenate	TIANamp Micro DNA Kit (DP316) [32] [34]	Release and stabilize nucleic acids
DNA Extraction	Purification of total nucleic acid	Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kits [34]	Quantity DNA mass (>5 ng required)
Library Preparation	DNA fragmentation (200-300 bp), end repair, adapter ligation	Illumina Nextera, Ion Xpress Fragment Library Kit [35]	Prepare fragments for sequencing
Quality Control	Assess library concentration and fragment size	Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer [32]	Ensure library quality before sequencing
Sequencing	Platform-dependent run	Illumina NextSeq, MiSeq, NovaSeq; Ion Torrent PGM [33] [35]	Generate sequence reads

The workflow begins with sample collection, typically involving bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), blood, or tissue samples collected using sterile techniques to minimize contamination [30]. Nucleic acid extraction then isolates total DNA, with many protocols using the TIANamp Micro DNA Kit or similar products [32] [34]. For sequencing platforms requiring nanogram inputs, the total DNA mass must be quantified using fluorescent assays such as Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kits [34].

Library preparation involves fragmenting DNA to 200-300 bp, followed by end repair, adapter ligation, and potential amplification. Enzymatic fragmentation methods (e.g., "Fragmentase" in Ion Xpress kits) can reduce hands-on time compared to physical shearing [35]. The Nextera method (Illumina) uses transposase enzyme to simultaneously fragment DNA and add adapters, enabling library preparation in approximately 90 minutes [35]. Quality control steps using instruments like the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer ensure appropriate library concentration and fragment size distribution before sequencing [32].

Bioinformatic Analysis Pipeline

Following sequencing, raw data undergoes comprehensive bioinformatic processing:

• Quality Filtering: Tools like fastp remove low-quality reads (Q-score <30), short sequences (<35 bp), and adapter contamination [33] [34].

• Host DNA Depletion: Alignment to human reference genomes (GRCh38/hg19) using BWA or bowtie2 removes host-derived sequences, which can constitute >90% of reads in BALF samples [33] [32] [34].

• Microbial Alignment: Remaining reads are aligned against curated pathogen databases (bacterial, viral, fungal, parasitic) using tools like SNAP or BLAST [32] [34]. These databases typically include RefSeq genomes from NCBI and clinically relevant species from microbiology references.

• Pathogen Identification: Statistical thresholds determine true pathogens versus background. For Mycobacterium tuberculosis, some protocols use SMRNs (Standardized Microbial Read Numbers) ≥1 [33], while other approaches use genome coverage (>1%) and minimum read counts (>3) to filter out contaminants [34].

Negative controls processed alongside clinical samples help identify environmental or reagent contaminants that must be subtracted from final results [30] [34].

Sequencing Platform Comparison

Technical Specifications of Major Platforms

Multiple sequencing platforms support mNGS applications, each with distinct performance characteristics:

Table 3: Comparison of Sequencing Platforms for mNGS Applications

Platform	Maximum Output	Read Length	Run Time	Reads per Run	Best Application
Illumina MiSeq	15 Gb	2 × 300 bp	5-55 hours	25 million	Amplicon sequencing, small genomes
Illumina NovaSeq 6000	6000 Gb	2 × 150 bp	19-40 hours	20 billion	Large studies, high-depth sequencing
Ion Torrent PGM	2 Gb	200-400 bp	3-4 hours	4-5 million	Rapid turnaround, small panels
Pacific Biosciences	Variable	>10,000 bp	0.5-4 hours	500,000	Complete genome assembly, structural variants

Platform selection depends on research priorities. Illumina platforms generally provide higher throughput and accuracy, with MiSeq suitable for targeted applications and NovaSeq enabling large-scale studies [36] [37]. Ion Torrent systems offer faster turnaround times but may exhibit sequence context bias, particularly in extremely AT-rich genomes like Plasmodium falciparum, where approximately 30% of the genome may receive no coverage [35]. Pacific Biosciences and Oxford Nanopore Technologies generate long reads that facilitate assembly and structural variant detection but at lower throughput and higher per-base cost [35].

Platform Performance in Microbiome Studies

Direct comparisons between platforms reveal performance differences relevant to pathogen detection. In oral microbiome studies, NovaSeq produced significantly higher read counts (193,081 ± 91,268) compared to MiSeq (71,406 ± 35,095), resulting in more operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and better detection of rare taxa [37]. Both platforms showed similar community diversity metrics and strong correlation in relative abundance measurements, though NovaSeq's higher sensitivity makes it preferable for large-scale studies requiring detection of low-abundance organisms [37].

Performance varies across genomic contexts. While most platforms handle GC-rich, neutral, and moderately AT-rich genomes effectively, extreme GC content affects coverage uniformity. In one systematic comparison, Ion Torrent displayed profound bias when sequencing the extremely AT-rich Plasmodium falciparum genome, while Pacific Biosciences and Illumina platforms maintained more uniform coverage [35]. The enzyme used for amplification during library preparation significantly influences this bias, with Kapa HiFi polymerase demonstrating reduced bias compared to standard enzymes [35].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful mNGS implementation requires carefully selected reagents and tools at each workflow stage:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for mNGS Workflows

Category	Product Examples	Application Note
Nucleic Acid Extraction	TIANamp Micro DNA Kit (DP316) [32]	Optimal for low-biomass samples; minimum 5 ng input
DNA Quantitation	Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kits [34]	Fluorometric quantification superior to spectrophotometry
Library Preparation	Illumina Nextera, Ion Xpress Fragment Library Kit [35]	Nextera enables rapid preparation (90 minutes)
Polymerase Enzymes	Kapa HiFi Polymerase [35]	Reduces GC bias in amplification steps
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NextSeq CN500 [33]	Used in clinical validation studies with 75 bp reads
Bioinformatics Tools	fastp, BWA, bowtie2, SNAP [33] [34]	Open-source options for quality control and alignment

Interpretation Guidelines and Diagnostic Criteria

Distinguishing True Pathogens from Background

Accurate interpretation of mNGS results requires distinguishing true infections from environmental contamination or background microbial communities:

Critical interpretation factors include:

• Read Thresholds: Establishing minimum read counts or relative abundance thresholds specific to sample type and pathogen. For Mycobacterium tuberculosis, some protocols consider any reads (SMRNs ≥1) as significant due to its clinical importance and low background rates [33].

• Genomic Coverage: Calculating the percentage of reference genome covered by sequencing reads. Most true pathogens show >1% genome coverage, while contaminants exhibit patchy or minimal coverage [34].

• Background Contamination: Subtracting organisms present in negative controls and those known to be common contaminants (e.g., skin flora in tissue samples).

• Clinical Correlation: Integrating patient symptoms, immune status, radiologic findings, and other test results to determine clinical significance.

For spinal infections, a multidisciplinary team approach incorporating histopathological findings, imaging results, and Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria provides the most accurate reference standard [31]. In lower respiratory tract infections, final diagnosis should integrate mNGS results with culture, PCR, antigen testing, and clinical presentation [30].

Resolving Discordant Results

When mNGS and conventional tests yield discordant results, resolution strategies include:

• Additional Testing: Using alternative molecular methods like Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis confirmation [33].

• Quantitative Correlation: Analyzing relationships between mNGS read counts and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Strong negative correlation (r = -0.668, P < 0.001) between mNGS standardized read numbers and RT-PCR Ct values supports true positive calls [33].

• Sample Quality Assessment: Reviewing internal control performance and DNA quality metrics.

In tuberculosis diagnosis, discordant cases often involve extremely low bacterial loads. mNGS-positive/RT-PCR-negative samples typically show low standardized read numbers (median: 7 vs. 1788 in concordant positives), while mNGS-negative/RT-PCR-positive samples exhibit higher Ct values (median: 22.97 vs. 17.06 in concordant positives) [33]. These patterns reflect the different detection limits and technical variations between methods rather than true discrepancies.

mNGS represents a transformative technology for comprehensive pathogen detection with demonstrated superiority to culture-based methods and complementary value to targeted molecular assays. Its unbiased nature makes it particularly valuable for diagnostically challenging cases, immunocompromised patients, and detection of fastidious or novel pathogens. While platform selection involves trade-offs between throughput, read length, cost, and turnaround time, Illumina systems currently dominate clinical applications due to their accuracy and established workflows. Successful implementation requires careful attention to each step from sample collection through bioinformatic analysis and clinical interpretation. As costs decline and workflows standardize, mNGS is poised to become an increasingly accessible tool for pathogen detection in both research and clinical settings, particularly when integrated with conventional methods within a structured diagnostic framework.

In the field of parasite detection research, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized our ability to identify and characterize pathogenic organisms. Two principal approaches—targeted metagenomics (often referred to as metabarcoding) and shotgun metagenomics—enable researchers to detect and monitor parasitic infections with unprecedented resolution. Targeted metagenomics focuses on amplifying and sequencing specific marker genes, such as the 18S rRNA gene, for taxonomic classification [1]. In contrast, shotgun metagenomics sequences all DNA present in a sample without targeting specific regions [38]. For researchers investigating parasitic diseases, understanding the technical nuances, performance characteristics, and limitations of these approaches is crucial for selecting the appropriate methodology for their specific research objectives, whether for clinical diagnostics, biodiversity assessment, or surveillance studies [1] [38].

Technical Foundations and Key Differences

The fundamental distinction between these approaches lies in their scope and methodology. Targeted metagenomics using markers like 18S rRNA relies on PCR amplification of conserved, taxonomically informative gene regions before sequencing [39] [40]. This method requires careful primer selection to ensure amplification of the target parasite groups while minimizing amplification bias [41]. Shotgun metagenomics, however, employs random sequencing of all DNA fragments in a sample without prior amplification, followed by computational assembly and classification [38] [28].

The choice of genetic marker is critical in targeted metagenomics. The 18S rRNA gene is widely used for eukaryotic pathogens like parasites due to its conserved regions that facilitate primer design and variable regions that provide taxonomic discrimination [39] [41]. Other markers include the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions, which offer higher discriminatory power for specific fungal parasites [41].

Table 1: Core Methodological Differences Between Targeted and Shotgun Metagenomics

Feature	Targeted Metagenomics (Metabarcoding)	Shotgun Metagenomics
Target	Specific marker genes (e.g., 18S rRNA, ITS)	All genomic DNA in sample
PCR Amplification	Required (potential source of bias)	Not required (PCR-free)
Read Depth for Targets	High (due to amplification)	Variable (depends on abundance)
Reference Database Dependency	High (for marker gene sequences)	Very High (for whole genomes)
Primary Output	Taxonomic profile	Genomic and functional potential

Performance Comparison for Parasite Detection

Sensitivity and Taxonomic Resolution

Studies directly comparing these methods for parasite detection reveal divergent performance characteristics. Targeted metagenomics typically demonstrates higher sensitivity for detecting low-abundance parasites because PCR amplification enriches target sequences [40]. However, this sensitivity comes with significant limitations—primers may preferentially amplify certain taxa while missing others due to sequence mismatches, potentially leading to false negatives [41] [42].

Shotgun metagenomics can detect a broader spectrum of parasites without amplification bias but requires deeper sequencing to detect low-abundance organisms [28] [42]. A dietary study on pipefishes found that metabarcoding identified a dominant prey species (a proxy for parasite detection), while shotgun metagenomics revealed additional related species, suggesting that amplification bias in metabarcoding can obscure true diversity [42].

Quantitative Accuracy

Both methods face challenges in accurately quantifying parasite loads. Targeted metagenomics is considered semi-quantitative due to PCR amplification biases and variations in gene copy numbers [40]. For instance, the 18S rRNA gene copy number varies significantly across different parasitic species, distorting abundance measurements [40].

Shotgun metagenomics provides better relative abundance estimates by avoiding PCR bias, but results are still influenced by genome size variations [40]. Species with larger genomes contribute more DNA and thus appear more abundant, requiring normalization for accurate quantification [40].

Table 2: Performance Comparison for Parasite Detection

Performance Metric	Targeted Metagenomics	Shotgun Metagenomics
Detection Sensitivity	High for targeted groups (with amplification)	Lower for rare species (without enrichment)
Taxonomic Scope	Limited to primer specificity	Broad, all domains of life
Quantitative Accuracy	Semi-quantitative (affected by PCR bias, gene copy number)	Better relative abundance (affected by genome size)
Ability to Detect Novel Species	Limited by primer binding sites	Possible with adequate sequencing depth
Reference Database Completeness	Critical (but smaller database needed)	Extremely Critical (large, incomplete databases)

Experimental Design and Methodologies

Laboratory Workflows

Targeted Metagenomics Workflow:

• DNA Extraction: Use kits designed for the sample type (e.g., stool, blood, tissue) [42]. Methods must be optimized for breaking resistant structures like fungal spores [39].
• Primer Selection: Choose primers based on target parasites. For broad eukaryotic detection, 18S rRNA primers like FF390/FR1 (amplicon ~330bp) provide good coverage [41]. For specific groups, use tailored primers (e.g., for Cryptomycota) [41].
• Library Preparation: Amplify target region with PCR, incorporating adapters for sequencing. Minimize PCR cycles to reduce bias [43].
• Sequencing: Perform on Illumina MiSeq or comparable platforms (2×300 bp for longer amplicons) [36].

Shotgun Metagenomics Workflow:

• DNA Extraction: Use methods yielding high-molecular-weight DNA (≥1kb) [40]. Quantity and quality are critical for library construction.
• Library Preparation: Fragment DNA, repair ends, and ligate adapters without target enrichment [44] [43].
• Sequencing: Requires high-output platforms (e.g., Illumina NovaSeq) for sufficient depth [36].

Bioinformatics Analysis

Targeted Metagenomics Analysis:

• Process raw sequences (demultiplex, quality filter, merge paired-end reads)
• Cluster sequences into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs)
• Classify taxa using reference databases (e.g., PR2, SILVA) with tools like QIIME2 [39]

Shotgun Metagenomics Analysis:

• Perform quality control and host DNA depletion
• Assemble reads into contigs using tools like MEGAHIT [28]
• Classify using genome-based tools (Kraken2) or assemble metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) with MetaBAT [28]

Figure 1: Comparative Workflows for Parasite Detection. Targeted metagenomics uses PCR to amplify specific marker genes like 18S rRNA, while shotgun metagenomics sequences all DNA without target-specific amplification.

Research Reagent Solutions and Tools

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Metagenomic Parasite Detection

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Application Notes
Wet Lab Reagents	DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit [44]	Standardized DNA extraction from various samples
18S rRNA Primers	nu-SSU-1333-5'/nu-SSU-1647-3′ (FF390/FR1) [41]	~330bp amplicon covering V4-V5 regions, good fungal coverage
Blocking Oligonucleotides	Taxon-specific blocking oligos [41]	Reduce co-amplification of non-target eukaryotes
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina MiSeq (targeted), NovaSeq (shotgun) [36]	Platform choice depends on required depth and read length
Bioinformatics Tools	BROCC [39], PGIP [28], Kraken2 [28]	Taxonomic classification tools for parasite identification

Applications in Parasitology Research

Targeted metagenomics excels in large-scale biodiversity surveys and clinical screening for known parasites where cost-effectiveness and high sensitivity are priorities [1] [40]. Its application is particularly valuable for detecting parasitic infections in stool samples, where traditional microscopy has limited sensitivity [1].

Shotgun metagenomics is indispensable for discovering novel parasites, investigating outbreak strains, and understanding functional potential like drug resistance mechanisms [1] [28]. This approach successfully identified Dirofilaria repens in Colombia for the first time, demonstrating its power for detecting emerging pathogens [1].

Figure 2: Decision Framework for Method Selection. The choice between targeted and shotgun metagenomics depends on multiple factors including research goals, sample quality, and available resources.

Targeted metagenomics and shotgun metagenomics offer complementary approaches for parasite detection using deep sequencing technologies. Targeted metagenomics provides a cost-effective, sensitive method for identifying known parasites in large sample sets, making it ideal for clinical screening and biodiversity monitoring [40]. Shotgun metagenomics offers a comprehensive, unbiased approach capable of discovering novel pathogens and revealing functional characteristics, albeit at higher cost and computational requirements [28] [40].

For researchers designing parasite detection studies, the optimal approach depends on specific research questions, sample types, and available resources. As reference databases expand and sequencing costs decrease, hybrid approaches and integrated bioinformatics platforms like PGIP [28] will further enhance parasitic disease research, surveillance, and clinical diagnostics.

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) for High-Resolution Genetic Characterization

Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) has emerged as a transformative technology in infectious disease research, providing unprecedented resolution for characterizing pathogens. For parasitic diseases, WGS enables high-resolution typing that surpasses traditional methods like microscopy, serology, and targeted molecular assays [45] [1]. By delivering comprehensive genomic data in a single assay, WGS facilitates the detection of co-infections, identification of imported parasite strains, and discovery of drug resistance markers—critical applications for both clinical management and public health surveillance [46]. The technology has evolved through multiple generations, from first-generation Sanger sequencing to modern next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms that can sequence millions of DNA fragments in parallel, dramatically reducing costs while increasing throughput [47]. This guide objectively compares WGS performance against alternative genomic approaches, examining their respective capabilities for genetic characterization of parasites in research settings.

Technology Comparison: WGS Versus Alternative Sequencing Approaches

Head-to-Head Performance Metrics

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Genomic Sequencing Approaches for Parasite Characterization

Parameter	Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)	Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)	Targeted Sequencing
Genomic Coverage	Complete genome (coding + non-coding)	Protein-coding regions only (~1-2% of genome)	Pre-defined genomic regions
Variant Detection Range	SNVs, indels, structural variants, copy number variants, regulatory variants	Primarily coding SNVs and small indels	Limited to targeted markers
Diagnostic Yield (Pediatric Rare Disease Cohort)	68.1% (primary & secondary findings) [48]	30.6% (primary diagnoses) [48]	Not applicable
Ability to Detect Novel Variants	High	Moderate	Limited to known targets
Best Applications	Outbreak investigation, transmission tracking, drug resistance surveillance, population genomics	Diagnosis of known hereditary disorders, variant screening in coding regions	High-throughput screening of specific markers, field surveillance
Key Limitations	Higher computational requirements, more complex data interpretation	Misses non-coding and structural variants	Limited by prior knowledge of targets

WGS Versus WES: Diagnostic Superiority in Clinical Contexts

A direct patient-level comparison demonstrates WGS's superior diagnostic capability. In a prospective study of 72 pediatric patients with suspected genetic disorders, WGS provided diagnostic or secondary findings in 68.1% of cases, more than doubling WES's primary diagnostic rate of 30.6% [48]. WGS exclusively identified diagnoses in 37.5% of patients, resolving complex phenotypes and detecting variant types consistently missed by WES, including deep intronic, regulatory, and structural variants [48]. This performance advantage extends to parasite research, where WGS comprehensively characterizes the full genomic landscape of pathogens rather than just preselected regions.

Advantages Over Traditional Pathogen Characterization Methods

WGS offers significant improvements over conventional parasitic diagnostic methods. Microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) lack sensitivity for low-density infections and cannot differentiate between parasite species with similar morphology [46]. In contrast, WGS can identify all six malaria species causing human disease and detect co-infections, with one study of 9,321 clinical isolates identifying co-infections in 4.8% of samples [46]. Unlike PCR-based genotyping methods that target limited genomic regions, WGS provides genome-wide data enabling high-resolution transmission tracking and population studies [45].

Experimental Data: WGS Performance Across Studies

Reproducibility and Concordance Between Analysis Pipelines

Table 2: Inter-Pipeline Variability in WGS Analysis (SNP-based Pipelines)

Performance Metric	European Sample (NA12878)	African Sample (NA19240)	Notes
Total Variants Identified	9,120,618	16,293,639	Autosomes + X chromosome [49]
Biallelic SNPs	6,464,817 (91.8% of biallelic variants)	11,802,101 (93.2% of biallelic variants)	[49]
Pipeline Variability (max/min ratio)	1.3-3.4	1.3-3.4	Higher for indels [49]
Average Call Concordance Between Pipelines	58.1% (SNPs), 34.1% (indels)	40.1% (SNPs), 25.0% (indels)	[49]
Key Influencing Factors	Minor allele frequency, repetitive elements, GC content, coverage depth	Minor allele frequency, repetitive elements, GC content, coverage depth	[49]

The remarkable difference in variant calls between analytical pipelines highlights the importance of standardized bioinformatics approaches. A comprehensive evaluation of 70 analytic pipelines (combining 7 short-read aligners and 10 variant calling algorithms) found that variant call sets clustered more closely by variant calling algorithms than by aligners [49]. Concordance rates were significantly higher for common variants than for rare variants, with pipelines performing more consistently on the European genome than the African genome, underscoring the need for diverse reference datasets [49].

WGS for Parasite Surveillance and Drug Resistance Monitoring

In parasitology, WGS has demonstrated exceptional utility for large-scale surveillance applications. The Malaria-Profiler tool, which utilizes WGS data, can rapidly predict Plasmodium species, geographical origin, and antimalarial drug resistance profiles across thousands of samples [46]. In an analysis of 7,462 P. falciparum isolates, the tool identified resistance markers for chloroquine (49.2%), sulfadoxine (83.3%), pyrimethamine (85.4%), and markers associated with partial artemisinin resistance (30.6% in Southeast Asian samples) [46]. The geographical prediction accuracy was high at both continental (96.1%) and regional (94.6%) levels, demonstrating WGS's utility for tracking imported malaria cases [46].

Methodological Protocols: WGS in Practice

Standardized WGS Wet-Lab Procedures

Wet-Lab Workflow Diagram

Reproducible WGS requires strict adherence to established laboratory protocols. The process begins with sample collection (blood, saliva, or dried blood spots for clinical parasites), followed by DNA extraction using commercial kits such as QIAamp DNA Mini Kit or Gentra Puregene Blood Extraction Kit [50] [48]. For library preparation, PCR-free methods are preferred to minimize bias, with platforms like Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep providing optimal results [51]. Sequencing typically occurs on Illumina platforms (NovaSeq 6000 or HiSeq 2500) with a minimum coverage of 30x for WGS and 20x for WES to ensure variant calling accuracy [48]. Quality control measures include monitoring PhiX control error rates (<1%) and assessing sample coverage breadth (>95% for SNP pipelines) [50] [51].

Bioinformatics Pipelines for Parasite WGS Data

Bioinformatics Pipeline Diagram

Bioinformatics processing represents a critical component of WGS analysis. The standard workflow begins with quality control of raw FastQ files using tools like FastQC, followed by trimming of adapter sequences and low-quality bases [45]. Alignment to reference genomes (e.g., H37Rv for M. tuberculosis, PlasmoDB references for malaria parasites) employs aligners such as BWA-MEM, Bowtie, or Stampy [50]. Variant calling utilizes specialized algorithms—GATK HaplotypeCaller, Samtools, or MTBseq—with parameters optimized for specific pathogens [50] [49]. For parasite studies, specialized tools like Malaria-Profiler incorporate mutation libraries for species identification, geographical sourcing, and drug resistance profiling [46]. Critical filtering parameters include minimum coverage depth (typically 8x-20x), allele frequency thresholds (75%-90%), and exclusion of problematic genomic regions [50].

Essential Research Tools for WGS Implementation

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for WGS Workflows

Reagent/Tool	Function	Examples & Specifications
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality genomic DNA from clinical samples	QIAamp DNA Mini Kit, Gentra Puregene Blood Extraction Kit [50] [48]
Library Prep Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries from DNA fragments	Illumina DNA PCR-Free Prep, Twist Human Core Exome Plus [51] [48]
Sequencing Platforms	High-throughput DNA sequencing	Illumina NovaSeq 6000, HiSeq 2500; PacBio, Oxford Nanopore for long-read sequencing [47] [48]
Alignment Algorithms	Mapping sequence reads to reference genomes	BWA-MEM, Bowtie, Stampy [50]
Variant Callers	Identification of genetic variants from aligned reads	GATK HaplotypeCaller, Samtools, MTBseq [50] [49]
Variant Annotation	Functional interpretation of identified variants	Varvis, ANNOTSV, Malaria-Profiler for parasite-specific markers [46] [48]

WGS provides undeniable advantages for high-resolution genetic characterization of parasites compared to alternative approaches. Its comprehensive genomic coverage enables detection of diverse variant types, superior diagnostic yield, and unparalleled ability to investigate transmission dynamics and drug resistance mechanisms. However, researchers must consider methodological standardization, computational requirements, and appropriate bioinformatics pipelines to maximize WGS utility. As the field evolves, emerging technologies including long-read sequencing, AI-assisted analysis, and multi-omics integration will further enhance WGS applications [52]. For researchers designing parasite studies, WGS represents the optimal choice when seeking to identify novel variants, characterize complex transmission patterns, or conduct comprehensive surveillance—particularly when studying pathogens with limited prior genomic characterization.

Foodborne illnesses caused by protozoan parasites such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Toxoplasma gondii represent a significant and ongoing public health challenge, particularly in developed countries where fresh produce is widely consumed [53]. Contamination of leafy greens can occur at various stages of the food chain, from pre-harvest through post-harvest handling [53]. Mitigating this risk has been hampered by the lack of adequate detection methods, as traditional techniques like microscopy and targeted molecular assays face important limitations in sensitivity, specificity, and scalability [53] [54].

Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) presents a transformative approach for pathogen detection, enabling comprehensive, culture-independent identification of microorganisms without prior knowledge of the targets [53] [55]. This case study objectively compares the performance of different NGS platforms—specifically Oxford Nanopore's MinION and Thermo Fisher's Ion Gene Studio S5—for detecting protozoan parasites on lettuce, providing experimental data and detailed methodologies to inform researchers and public health professionals.

Comparative NGS Platform Performance for Parasite Detection

The application of mNGS for parasite detection on leafy greens utilizes both short-read and long-read sequencing technologies, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Table 1 summarizes the key characteristics of the primary platforms used in the featured study and other relevant technologies applied in food safety surveillance [53] [56].

Table 1: Comparison of NGS Platforms for Foodborne Pathogen Detection

NGS Technology	Sequencing Principle	Advantages	Disadvantages	Demonstrated Application in Food Safety
Oxford Nanopore (MinION)	Nanopore electrical signal sequencing	Long reads, portability, real-time analysis, low capital cost	Relatively higher error rates	Metagenomic identification of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Toxoplasma on lettuce [53]
Ion Torrent (Ion S5)	Sequencing by synthesis, detection of H+ ions	Rapid sequencing (2-3 hours), small sample size needed	Short reads, relatively higher error rate	Validation of parasite detection on leafy greens [53] [56]
Illumina (e.g., MiSeq, iSeq)	Sequencing by synthesis with reversible terminators	High throughput and accuracy, industry standard	Short reads, high initial investment	Whole-genome sequencing of foodborne pathogens; used in PulseNet and GenomeTrakr [56] [57]
PacBio	Single-molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing	Long reads, high accuracy, minimal bias	High initial investment, large instrument size	Metagenetic analysis of dairy product quality [56]

The featured study directly compared Nanopore and Ion S5 platforms for detecting protozoan parasites on lettuce, demonstrating that both technologies could consistently identify multiple parasite species simultaneously, with Nanopore offering the additional advantage of real-time analysis [53].

Experimental Protocol for mNGS-Based Parasite Detection

Sample Preparation and Spiking

The experimental protocol began with the preparation of parasite suspensions. Highly purified suspensions of C. parvum, C. hominis, C. muris oocysts, and G. duodenalis cysts were commercially sourced, while T. gondii oocysts were obtained from USDA collaborators [53]. Counts of concentrated parasite suspensions in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) were estimated by light microscopy using a Neubauer hemocytometer counting chamber [53].

Romaine lettuce leaves (25 g) were placed flat in sterile plastic containers within a Biological Safety Cabinet. Replicate lettuce samples were spiked with varying numbers of C. parvum oocysts (ranging from 1 to 100,000 oocysts) applied dropwise over the entire leaf surface. Separate leaves were spiked with other parasites (C. hominis, C. muris, G. duodenalis, and T. gondii) individually or in combination to evaluate the method's differentiation capability [53]. After air-drying for at least 15 minutes, the leaves were placed in stomacher bags containing 40 ml of buffered peptone water supplemented with 0.1% Tween [53].

DNA Extraction and Whole Genome Amplification

Efficient lysis of robust oocyst and cyst walls represented a critical step for sensitive parasite detection. Traditional methods like freeze-thaw cycles or heating face limitations for NGS-compatible DNA extraction [53]. The developed protocol used the OmniLyse device to achieve rapid mechanical lysis within 3 minutes, significantly faster than conventional methods [53].

After lysis, DNA was extracted by acetate precipitation, followed by whole genome amplification to generate sufficient DNA for sequencing. This amplification step yielded 0.16–8.25 μg of DNA (median = 4.10 μg), enabling robust mNGS analysis [53]. This efficient DNA processing protocol addressed a key bottleneck in parasite detection from complex food matrices.

Library Preparation and Sequencing

For Nanopore sequencing, the amplified DNA was processed using the rapid barcoding kit (SQK-RBK110.96) according to the manufacturer's instructions. The library was loaded onto R9.4.1 flow cells and sequenced on the MinION Mk1C device for 24 hours [53]. For Ion S5 sequencing, libraries were prepared using the Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit and sequenced on the Ion Gene Studio S5 system [53].

Bioinformatic Analysis

The generated FASTQ files were uploaded to the CosmosID webserver for bioinformatic identification of microbes in the metagenome [53]. This platform uses curated databases and computational methods for taxonomic classification. As an alternative for researchers, the Parasite Genome Identification Platform (PGIP) offers a user-friendly web server specifically designed for taxonomic identification of parasite genomes from mNGS data, incorporating a quality-controlled database of 280 parasite genomes [20].

Experimental mNGS Workflow for Parasite Detection

Performance Comparison and Experimental Data

Sensitivity and Limit of Detection

The sensitivity of the mNGS assay was systematically evaluated by spiking lettuce with varying numbers of C. parvum oocysts. Table 2 presents the key performance metrics for parasite detection using the developed protocol [53].

Table 2: Sensitivity and Detection Limits for Foodborne Parasites using mNGS

Parasite Species	Lowest Detection Limit (in 25g lettuce)	Time to Results	Multiple Species Detection	Reference Method
Cryptosporidium parvum	100 oocysts	<24 hours (including sequencing)	Yes (simultaneous detection of 5 parasites)	Microscopy, PCR [53]
Giardia duodenalis	100 cysts	<24 hours	Yes	Microscopy, PCR [53]
Toxoplasma gondii	100 oocysts	<24 hours	Yes	Microscopy, PCR [53]

The study demonstrated consistent identification of as few as 100 oocysts of C. parvum in 25g of fresh lettuce using both Nanopore and Ion S5 sequencing platforms [53]. This sensitivity level is particularly notable given the complex matrix of leafy greens and the historical challenges in efficiently lysing robust parasite oocysts.

Specificity and Differentiation Capability

A critical advantage of the mNGS approach over traditional methods is its ability to simultaneously detect and differentiate multiple parasite species without requiring organism-specific assays. The methodology successfully identified and distinguished five common food and waterborne protozoan parasites: C. parvum, C. hominis, C. muris, G. duodenalis, and T. gondii, whether present individually or in combination [53]. This demonstrates the utility of mNGS as a universal detection system that can identify mixed infections or co-contaminations that might be missed by targeted approaches.

Comparison to Traditional Detection Methods

Table 3 compares the performance characteristics of mNGS against conventional methods for parasite detection in food safety applications [58] [54].

Table 3: Method Comparison for Parasite Detection in Food Safety

Aspect	Traditional Methods (Microscopy, PCR)	mNGS Approach
Principle	Based on morphological characteristics or targeted DNA amplification	Comprehensive sequencing of all nucleic acids in a sample [53]
Multiplexing Capability	Limited; requires separate tests for different pathogens	Simultaneous detection of all parasites present [53]
Unknown Pathogen Detection	Not possible without prior knowledge of target	Capable of discovering unexpected or novel pathogens [55]
Sensitivity	Variable; may miss low-level infections	High; detected 100 oocysts in 25g lettuce [53]
Turnaround Time	Days to weeks for comprehensive testing	<24 hours for complete analysis [53]
Strain Differentiation	Limited without additional testing	High-resolution genotyping possible [53] [58]
Implementation Barriers	Well-established but labor-intensive	Requires sequencing infrastructure and bioinformatics expertise [58]

The unbiased nature of mNGS provides a significant advantage for outbreak investigations where the causative agent is unknown, as it can detect unexpected pathogens without requiring hypothesis-driven testing [55].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for mNGS-Based Parasite Detection

Item	Function	Application in Featured Study
OmniLyse Device	Rapid mechanical lysis of robust oocyst/cyst walls	Achieved efficient parasite DNA release within 3 minutes [53]
Whole Genome Amplification Kits	Amplification of limited DNA to sequencing quantities	Generated 0.16-8.25 μg DNA from parasite samples [53]
Nanopore Rapid Barcoding Kit (SQK-RBK110.96)	Library preparation for MinION sequencing	Enabled multiplexed sequencing of multiple samples [53]
Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit	Library preparation for Ion S5 sequencing	Provided validation using alternative sequencing chemistry [53]
CosmosID Bioinformatics Platform	Taxonomic classification of metagenomic sequences	Identified and differentiated parasite species from complex metagenomes [53]
PGIP (Parasite Genome Identification Platform)	Specialized parasite genome identification	Alternative user-friendly bioinformatics solution for taxonomic classification [20]
Guanidine stearate	Guanidine stearate, CAS:26739-53-7, MF:C19H41N3O2, MW:343.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Hexanol butanoate	2-Hexanol butanoate, CAS:6963-52-6, MF:C10H20O2, MW:172.26 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

This case study demonstrates that mNGS technology, specifically utilizing both Nanopore MinION and Ion S5 platforms, provides a sensitive, specific, and comprehensive approach for detecting protozoan parasites on leafy greens. The experimental data show consistent detection of as few as 100 oocysts of C. parvum in 25g of lettuce, with the ability to simultaneously identify and differentiate multiple parasite species [53].

The development of a rapid, efficient DNA extraction protocol addressing the historical challenge of lysing robust parasite oocysts represents a significant methodological advancement [53]. When combined with the unbiased nature of mNGS, this approach offers a powerful universal detection system that can identify expected and unexpected pathogens in a single assay.

For researchers and public health professionals, mNGS presents a transformative tool for foodborne outbreak investigations, surveillance studies, and routine food safety monitoring. While challenges remain in standardization and bioinformatics analysis, platforms like PGIP are making this technology more accessible to non-bioinformatics experts [20]. As sequencing costs continue to decrease and methodologies improve, mNGS is poised to become an increasingly integral component of food safety systems, offering the potential to significantly reduce the burden of foodborne parasitic diseases.

Intestinal parasite infections represent a significant global health burden, affecting an estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide, with marginalized communities experiencing the greatest impact due to limited access to clean water and sanitation facilities [2]. Traditional diagnostic methods, including microscopic examination and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), face limitations such as operator dependency, low sensitivity in low-parasite-density infections, and an inability to provide comprehensive detection of multiple parasite species simultaneously [2]. The development of molecular diagnostics has transformed parasitology, with next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies creating unprecedented opportunities for the comprehensive screening of multiple parasite species within a single sample [2] [59].

This case study examines a specific research approach that utilized 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene metabarcoding to simultaneously detect and identify 11 different species of intestinal parasites [2] [60]. We will explore the experimental methodology, analyze the performance outcomes, detail the bioinformatic processing, and contextualize these findings within the broader landscape of NGS platforms for parasitic disease research. The objective is to provide researchers and drug development professionals with a comprehensive comparison of this metabarcoding approach against alternative diagnostic and sequencing technologies.

Experimental Methodology

Parasite Samples and DNA Preparation

The study utilized a carefully selected panel of 11 intestinal parasite species, encompassing both helminths and protozoa to represent a diverse range of clinically significant pathogens [2]. The helminths included were Ascaris lumbricoides, Clonorchis sinensis, Dibothriocephalus latus, Enterobius vermicularis, Fasciola hepatica, Necator americanus, Paragonimus westermani, Taenia saginata, and Trichuris trichiura. The protozoa representatives were Giardia intestinalis (also known as Giardia lamblia) and Entamoeba histolytica [2].

DNA was extracted from ethanol-preserved helminth specimens and laboratory-cultured protozoa samples using the Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil, following the manufacturer's protocol [2]. The extracted DNA samples were stored at -80°C until further processing to preserve nucleic acid integrity.

Plasmid Construction and Linearization

To establish a controlled reference system, the researchers cloned the 18S rDNA V9 region of each of the 11 parasite species into plasmids using the TOPcloner TA Kit [2]. This cloning process involved several critical steps:

• PCR Amplification: The V9 region of the 18S rRNA gene was amplified from individual parasite DNA samples using universal eukaryotic primers 1391F (5'-GTACACACCGCCCGTC-3') and EukBR (5'-TGATCCTTCTGCAGGTTCACCTAC-3') [2].
• TA Cloning: The amplified products were ligated into plasmid vectors and transformed into competent cells.
• Plasmid Extraction: Recombinant plasmids were extracted using the Exprep Plasmid SV Mini Kit, and concentrations were quantified using a Quantus fluorometer [2].

To optimize the sequencing process and minimize potential steric hindrance from circular plasmid DNA, the researchers implemented a linearization step using the restriction enzyme NcoI, which had a single restriction site in all 11 plasmid types [2]. This process was tested in three different experimental groups: non-linearized plasmids, pooled plasmids treated with restriction enzyme, and individually linearized then pooled plasmids.

Library Preparation and Sequencing

Library preparation for next-generation sequencing followed a targeted amplicon sequencing approach with specific modifications for the Illumina platform [2]:

• Adapter-Modified Primers: The original 18S rRNA primers were modified with Illumina adapter sequences: 1391F (5'-TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGGTACACACCGCCCGTC-3') and EukBR (5'-GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGTGATCCTTCTGCAGGTTCACCTAC-3') [2].
• PCR Amplification: Amplification was performed using KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix with an optimized thermal cycling protocol: initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 minutes; 30 cycles of 98°C for 30 seconds, 55°C for 30 seconds, and 72°C for 30 seconds; followed by a final extension at 72°C for 5 minutes [2].
• Indexing PCR: A limited-cycle (8-cycle) amplification step added multiplexing indices and full Illumina sequencing adapters.
• Sequencing: The pooled amplicon library was sequenced on an Illumina iSeq 100 platform using the Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2 kit, generating a total of 434,849 reads for analysis [2].

To evaluate the impact of PCR conditions on sequencing results, the researchers tested various annealing temperatures ranging from 40°C to 70°C in 3°C increments during library preparation [2].

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental workflow from sample preparation through data analysis:

Results and Performance Analysis

Detection Efficiency and Read Distribution

The metabarcoding approach successfully detected all 11 parasite species in the pooled sample, demonstrating its capability for comprehensive parallel identification [2]. However, the read count distribution varied substantially among species despite equal concentrations of plasmid DNA in the pool, indicating potential biases in the amplification or sequencing process.

Table 1: Read Distribution and Relative Abundance of 11 Intestinal Parasites

Parasite Species	Read Count Ratio (%)	Classification
Clonorchis sinensis	17.2%	Trematode
Entamoeba histolytica	16.7%	Protozoa
Dibothriocephalus latus	14.4%	Cestode
Trichuris trichiura	10.8%	Nematode
Fasciola hepatica	8.7%	Trematode
Necator americanus	8.5%	Nematode
Paragonimus westermani	8.5%	Trematode
Taenia saginata	7.1%	Cestode
Giardia intestinalis	5.0%	Protozoa
Ascaris lumbricoides	1.7%	Nematode
Enterobius vermicularis	0.9%	Nematode

The data reveals significant disparities in read distribution, with Clonorchis sinensis and Entamoeba histolytica receiving the highest representation (17.2% and 16.7%, respectively), while Enterobius vermicularis and Ascaris lumbricoides showed markedly lower representation (0.9% and 1.7%, respectively) [2]. This variation highlights a critical challenge in metabarcoding approaches - the potential for quantitative biases that may impact the accurate assessment of relative species abundance in mixed samples.

Impact of DNA Secondary Structure

The researchers investigated the observed disparities in read distribution by analyzing the DNA secondary structures of the V9 region for each parasite species [2]. Their analysis revealed a significant negative association between the complexity of DNA secondary structures and the number of output reads, suggesting that regions with more complex secondary structures may amplify less efficiently during PCR, thereby reducing their representation in the final sequencing library [2].

Table 2: Factors Influencing Read Distribution Bias

Factor	Impact on Read Distribution	Experimental Evidence
DNA Secondary Structure	Negative association with read counts; complex structures reduce amplification efficiency	Correlation between predicted structure complexity and lower read counts for species like E. vermicularis and A. lumbricoides [2]
Annealing Temperature	Significant impact on relative abundance of reads; different optimal temperatures for different species	Testing range from 40°C to 70°C showed temperature-dependent variation in species representation [2]
Plasmid Linearization	Minimizes steric hindrance; improves accessibility for primers	Compared three approaches: non-linearized, pooled then linearized, and linearized then pooled [2]
Primer Specificity	Variable binding efficiency across different parasite species	Universal primers showed differing amplification efficiencies across the 11 species [2]

This finding has important implications for quantitative interpretations of metabarcoding data, as species with simpler secondary structures may be overrepresented while those with more complex structures may be underrepresented in the final dataset.

Annealing Temperature Optimization

The study comprehensively evaluated how variations in amplicon PCR annealing temperature affected the relative abundance of output reads for each parasite [2]. By testing a wide range of annealing temperatures (40°C to 70°C in 3°C increments), the researchers demonstrated that this parameter significantly influences species representation in the final dataset, with different parasite species showing optimal detection at different temperatures [2].

The relationship between experimental parameters and read distribution can be visualized as follows:

This temperature-dependent variation underscores the importance of optimizing PCR conditions specifically for the target parasite community when designing metabarcoding assays, as no single temperature provided perfectly balanced amplification across all 11 species.

Bioinformatic Analysis Pipeline

Sequence Processing and Quality Control

The bioinformatic analysis of the 434,849 raw sequences obtained from the Illumina iSeq 100 platform followed a standardized workflow for amplicon sequencing data [2]:

• Demultiplexing and Trimming: Raw sequence reads were demultiplexed and adapter sequences were trimmed using Cutadapt (v4.5) to remove low-quality sequences and prepare data for downstream analysis [2].
• Denoising and Dereplication: Processed reads were denoised and dereplicated using DADA2 (v1.26), a noise reduction algorithm widely used in 18S rDNA metabarcoding studies that models and corrects Illumina-sequenced amplicon errors to resolve true biological sequences [2].
• Chimera Removal: Chimeric sequences, which are artificial sequences formed during PCR by combining parts of different parent sequences, were identified and filtered out using DADA2's consensus method [2].

The entire bioinformatic process was implemented within the QIIME 2 (2023.2) framework, providing a reproducible and standardized analysis environment [2].

Taxonomic Assignment

For taxonomic classification of the amplicon sequence variants, the researchers utilized a custom database derived from the NCBI nucleotide database rather than relying on pre-curated databases [2]. This approach was selected to encompass a broader range of parasite sequences, which is particularly important for detecting diverse eukaryotic pathogens that may be underrepresented in standard databases.

The taxonomic assignment process involved:

• Database Construction: 18S rRNA sequences were extracted from NCBI through an advanced search for "18S rRNA" gene names, specifically focusing on vertebrates and parasites to create a targeted reference database [2].
• Classification Method: Taxonomic classification of representative sequences was performed using a feature classifier based on the consensus search method within QIIME 2 [2].
• Filtering: Unassigned reads, which represented only 0.07% of the total reads, were removed from subsequent analyses to ensure data quality [2].

Comparison with Alternative NGS Platforms

Performance Metrics Across Platforms

When evaluating the featured Illumina iSeq 100 approach against other next-generation sequencing platforms, several key differences emerge in technical capabilities and performance characteristics:

Table 3: Comparison of NGS Platforms for Parasite Detection Applications

Platform/Technology	Read Length	Throughput per Run	Key Advantages	Reported Applications in Parasitology
Illumina iSeq 100 (Featured)	Short-read (~300 bp)	434,849 reads (this study)	Low cost per sample; high accuracy; well-established protocols	18S V9 metabarcoding of 11 intestinal parasites [2]
Illumina MiSeq	Short-read (up to 300 bp)	28,886 reads/amplicon (average)	Higher throughput; proven accuracy for SNP calling	Targeted amplicon sequencing for Plasmodium drug resistance markers [10]
Ion Torrent PGM	Short-read (up to 400 bp)	1,754 reads/amplicon (average)	Rapid turnaround; semiconductor detection	Comparative analysis of P. falciparum drug resistance markers [10]
Oxford Nanopore Technologies	Long-read (>>10,000 bp)	Variable (real-time)	Portability; real-time analysis; long reads	Pathogen identification via molecular inversion probes [18]
PacBio HiFi	Long-read (10-25 kb)	High (Revio system)	High accuracy long reads; epigenetic detection	Not specifically reported for parasites in results

The Illumina iSeq 100 platform used in the featured study demonstrates particular strength in cost-effective, targeted amplicon sequencing applications where high-depth coverage of specific genomic regions is required for multiple samples [2]. In comparison, the Illumina MiSeq platform offered substantially higher coverage per amplicon (28,886 reads) versus Ion Torrent PGM (1,754 reads) in a comparative study of Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers, though both platforms showed equivalent accuracy in single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling when compared to Sanger sequencing as the reference standard [10].

Technology-Specific Strengths and Limitations

Each NGS platform offers distinct advantages and limitations for parasite detection applications:

Illumina Platforms (iSeq 100, MiSeq, NovaSeq X)

• Strengths: High base-level accuracy (Q30+), well-validated protocols, extensive reference databases, suitable for high-multiplexing of samples [2] [10] [26].
• Limitations: Short read lengths limit ability to resolve complex genomic regions or perform haplotype phasing, higher equipment costs for premium models [61].

Oxford Nanopore Technologies (MinION, GridION)

• Strengths: Long-read capabilities, real-time sequencing, portability for field applications, direct RNA and epigenetic modification detection [61] [18].
• Limitations: Historically higher error rates (~97-98% accuracy for simplex reads), though duplex sequencing now achieves Q30 (>99.9%) accuracy [61].

Pacific Biosciences (Revio with HiFi reads)

• Strengths: Combination of long reads (10-25 kb) with high accuracy (Q30-Q40), excellent for complex genome assembly and structural variant detection [61].
• Limitations: Higher DNA input requirements, higher cost per run compared to short-read platforms [61].

Ion Torrent (Thermo Fisher Scientific)

• Strengths: Rapid turnaround time, semiconductor-based detection (no optical scanning), lower instrument costs [10] [62].
• Limitations: Lower throughput compared to Illumina platforms, challenges with homopolymer regions [10].

For the specific application of 18S rRNA metabarcoding, the high accuracy and moderate throughput of the Illumina iSeq 100 made it particularly suitable for the simultaneous identification of multiple parasite species, though the observed biases in read distribution highlight the importance of platform-aware experimental design [2].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The successful implementation of parasite metabarcoding studies requires carefully selected research reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions utilized in the featured study and their specific functions:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Parasite Metabarcoding Studies

Reagent/Material	Specific Function	Application in Featured Study
Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil	DNA extraction from complex biological samples	Extraction of genomic DNA from parasite specimens [2]
TOPcloner TA Kit	TA cloning of PCR products into plasmid vectors	Cloning 18S rDNA V9 regions into plasmids for reference standards [2]
NcoI Restriction Enzyme	Specific DNA cleavage at restriction sites	Linearization of circular plasmids to reduce steric hindrance [2]
KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix	High-fidelity PCR amplification with hot start capability	Amplification of target V9 regions with Illumina adapters [2]
Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2	Sequencing chemistry for Illumina iSeq 100	Generation of 434,849 reads for parasite identification [2]
Agencourt AMPure XP Beads	Solid-phase reversible immobilization for DNA purification	Size selection and purification of sequencing libraries [18]
QIIME 2	Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology platform	Bioinformatic processing of sequence data [2]
DADA2 Algorithm	Divisive amplicon denoising algorithm	Error correction and amplicon sequence variant inference [2]

These reagents represent core components for laboratories establishing metabarcoding capabilities for parasite identification. The selection of high-fidelity PCR enzymes is particularly critical for minimizing amplification biases, while specialized DNA extraction kits optimized for complex samples improve recovery of parasite DNA which may be present in low abundances relative to host DNA [2].

This case study demonstrates that 18S rRNA metabarcoding on the Illumina iSeq 100 platform represents a powerful approach for the simultaneous detection of multiple intestinal parasite species, successfully identifying all 11 target species in a single assay [2]. The methodology offers significant advantages over conventional diagnostic techniques, particularly in its ability to provide comprehensive screening without prior knowledge of the specific parasites present in a sample.

However, the observed variation in read distribution among species, influenced by factors such as DNA secondary structure and PCR annealing temperature, highlights important technical considerations for quantitative applications of this technology [2]. These findings emphasize that while metabarcoding excels at qualitative detection, careful optimization and appropriate controls are necessary for reliable relative abundance assessments.

When compared to alternative NGS platforms, the Illumina technology used in this study provides an optimal balance of accuracy, throughput, and cost-effectiveness for targeted amplicon sequencing applications in parasitology [2] [10]. Emerging technologies such as Oxford Nanopore and PacBio HiFi sequencing offer complementary capabilities, particularly for complex genomic regions or field applications, though they currently face different limitations regarding accuracy and cost [61] [18].

For researchers and drug development professionals, this metabarcoding approach presents a valuable tool for epidemiological surveys, drug efficacy studies, and comprehensive diagnostic applications where understanding complex parasite communities is essential. Future developments in primer design, PCR optimization, and bioinformatic analysis will likely further enhance the quantitative accuracy and expand the applications of this promising technology in parasitology research and clinical diagnostics.

Optimizing Your Parasite NGS Workflow: From Sample Prep to Data Analysis

Efficiently extracting high-quality DNA from the robust oocysts of Cryptosporidium and cysts of Giardia and Entamoeba histolytica is a critical, foundational step for sensitive detection and genotyping using next-generation sequencing (NGS). The tough, environmentally resistant walls of these transmission stages pose a significant barrier to lysis and can harbor PCR inhibitors, making DNA recovery a major bottleneck in parasite research and diagnostics. This guide objectively compares the performance of various DNA extraction approaches, from optimized commercial kits to innovative physical lysis techniques, providing researchers with validated protocols to support their NGS projects.

Commercial Kits vs. Modified Protocols: A Performance Comparison

Commercial DNA extraction kits offer convenience and standardization, but their performance for tough-walled protozoa can vary significantly. The data below compares different approaches, highlighting how protocol modifications can drastically improve outcomes.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of DNA Extraction Methods for Protozoan Oocysts/Cysts

Extraction Method	Sample Type	Key Protocol Steps	Performance Metrics	Reference
QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Standard Protocol)	Whole feces	Lysis with InhibitEX tablets, silica-membrane purification [63]	Giardia/E. histolytica: 100% sensitivity & specificityCryptosporidium: 60% sensitivity, 100% specificity [63]	[63]
QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Amended Protocol)	Whole feces	Boiling lysis (100°C, 10 min), 5 min InhibitEX incubation, pre-cooled ethanol, small elution volume (50-100 µl) [63]	Cryptosporidium: 100% sensitivity, 100% specificityTheoretical detection limit: ≈2 oocysts/cysts [63]	[63]
OmniLyse Lysis + Metagenomics	Lettuce wash	Rapid mechanical lysis (3 min) with OmniLyse device, DNA precipitation, whole-genome amplification [64]	Consistent identification of 100 C. parvum oocysts in 25g lettuce; simultaneous detection of multiple parasites [64]	[64]
Heat Denaturation/Proteinase K	Primary goat cells	Resuspension in lysis buffer, heat denaturation (95°C, 10 min), Proteinase K digestion [65]	Effective for detecting large transgene knock-ins (>1 kb); 93% amplification success in difficult cell types [65]	[65]
Open-Source DREX Protocol	Vertebrate feces	Bead-beating mechanical lysis, magnetic bead-based purification with guanidinium thiocyanate [66]	Comparable host genome coverage and microbial community profiles to commercial kits; cost-effective [66]	[66]

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Methods

Protocol 1: Amended QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit Procedure

This protocol, optimized for direct use on fecal samples, significantly enhances the recovery of Cryptosporidium DNA [63].

• Sample Lysis: Add 200 µL of sample to 200 µL of ASL buffer. Incubate at 100°C (boiling point) for 10 minutes to disrupt the robust oocyst/cyst walls effectively [63].
• Inhibitor Removal: Transfer the lysate to a tube with an InhibitEX tablet. Vortex immediately and continuously for 1 minute or until the tablet is fully suspended. Incubate at room temperature for 5 minutes to allow inhibitors to adsorb to the tablet matrix [63].
• DNA Binding and Washing: Centrifuge to pellet the InhibitEX matrix. Apply the supernatant to a QIAamp spin column. Perform two wash steps using buffers AW1 and AW2. For the alcohol-based wash, use pre-cooled ethanol to improve nucleic acid precipitation and recovery [63].
• DNA Elution: Elute the pure DNA in 50-100 µL of pre-heated AE buffer (70°C). The small elution volume increases the final DNA concentration, improving detectability in downstream PCR and NGS library prep [63].

Protocol 2: Metagenomic Detection from Leafy Greens

This workflow is designed for detecting parasites on contaminated produce and uses a rapid, efficient lysis step suitable for NGS [64].

• Sample Processing and Concentration: Wash 25g of lettuce with buffered peptone water. Dissociate oocysts/cysts using a stomacher, then filter through a 35 µm filter under vacuum. Pellet the oocysts by centrifugation at 15,000 x g for 60 minutes at 4°C and discard the supernatant [64].
• Rapid Mechanical Lysis: Lyse the pellet using the OmniLyse device for 3 minutes. This rapid physical disruption efficiently breaks the oocysts/cysts without prolonged heat that can damage DNA [64].
• DNA Extraction and Amplification: Extract DNA using acetate precipitation. Subject the extracted DNA to whole-genome amplification to generate sufficient quantities (0.16–8.25 µg) for metagenomic sequencing [64].
• Sequencing and Analysis: Perform sequencing on a platform such as MinION or Ion S5. Analyze the resulting fastq files using a bioinformatic platform like the CosmosID webserver for taxonomic identification of parasites in the metagenome [64].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key decision points and steps in the amended QIAamp and metagenomic detection protocols.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful DNA extraction from resilient protozoan forms relies on a specific set of reagents and tools designed to overcome lysis and inhibition challenges.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Oocyst/Cyst DNA Extraction

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Example in Use
InhibitEX Tablets	Adsorbs PCR inhibitors (e.g., bilirubins, bile salts) common in fecal samples [63].	QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit [63]
Proteinase K	Enzymatically digests proteins to aid in cell wall disruption and release of DNA [65].	Heat denaturation/Proteinase K protocol [65]
Guanidinium Thiocyanate	Chaotropic salt that denatures proteins, inhibits nucleases, and promotes binding of DNA to silica [66].	DREX open-source protocol [66]
Silica-coated Magnetic Beads	Selective binding and purification of DNA in the presence of chaotropic salts, enabling automation [66].	DREX and other high-throughput, bead-based protocols [66]
Lysing Matrix E	A blend of ceramic and silica particles for mechanical disruption of tough cell walls during bead-beating [66].	Sample homogenization in the DREX protocol [66]
OmniLyse Device	Provides rapid, standardized mechanical lysis for efficient disruption of oocysts/cysts [64].	Metagenomic detection from lettuce [64]
2-Aminocarbazole	2-Aminocarbazole, CAS:4539-51-9, MF:C12H10N2, MW:182.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Heptadecanol	2-Heptadecanol Research Chemical|99% Pure

The journey to efficient DNA extraction from robust oocysts and cysts has seen significant advances, moving from standard kit protocols to more tailored, physically-enhanced methods. The evidence shows that while commercial kits like the QIAamp Stool Mini Kit are a solid starting point, their performance, particularly for resilient parasites like Cryptosporidium, can be dramatically improved with simple amendments like boiling lysis and optimized incubation times [63]. For applications beyond human stool, such as food safety testing, rapid mechanical lysis coupled with metagenomic sequencing presents a powerful, broad-spectrum detection tool [64].

The future of this field is being shaped by the drive toward open-source, automatable methods like DREX that increase reproducibility and reduce costs [66], and the integration of advanced data analysis techniques like machine learning to predict contamination events from complex environmental data [67]. As NGS technologies continue to evolve, the pressure will remain on nucleic acid extraction to deliver pure, high-molecular-weight DNA from these challenging, yet critically important, pathogens.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized genomic research, enabling unprecedented insights into complex biological systems. For researchers investigating parasite detection and biology, the choice of library preparation method—specifically whether to use PCR-based or PCR-free protocols—represents a critical decision point that directly impacts data quality, reliability, and biological validity. Library preparation serves as the foundational bridge between raw biological samples and sequencing data, making this choice particularly significant for studies of parasitic organisms, which often present challenges such as low abundance in clinical samples and complex genomic architectures. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of PCR-based and PCR-free library preparation methods to empower researchers in selecting the optimal approach for their specific research contexts.

Fundamental Principles: How PCR-Based and PCR-Free Methods Work

Core Workflow Differences

The fundamental distinction between these approaches lies in the inclusion or omission of a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification step during library preparation.

PCR-based library preparation follows a multi-step process: DNA fragmentation, end repair, A-tailing, adapter ligation, PCR amplification, and quality control before sequencing. The PCR amplification step serves to increase library yield from limited input material and amplify fluorescent signals for detection by sequencers [68].

PCR-free library preparation eliminates the amplification step, proceeding directly from adapter ligation to quality control and sequencing. This approach requires higher initial DNA input but avoids introducing amplification-associated artifacts [68].

The following diagram illustrates the key differences in these workflows:

Technical Considerations for Parasite Research

For parasite genomics research, several technical aspects warrant particular consideration. The robust cell walls of parasite oocysts and cysts present significant challenges for DNA extraction, potentially resulting in limited DNA yield and quality [53]. This limitation may initially favor PCR-based approaches, though recent advancements in extraction methodologies have improved DNA recovery for PCR-free protocols.

Additionally, parasite genomes often exhibit distinct GC-content regions that can be problematic for PCR amplification. The elimination of amplification bias in PCR-free methods provides more uniform coverage across these challenging regions, potentially offering more comprehensive genomic representation [68].

Experimental Comparisons: Performance Metrics and Data Quality

Methodological Approaches for Comparative Studies

To objectively evaluate these methodologies, researchers have conducted systematic comparisons using standardized approaches. The following experimental protocols represent common methodologies for generating comparative performance data:

Virome Characterization Protocol (adapted from PMC8537689):

• Viral-like particles (VLPs) were isolated from human fecal samples using filtration and PEG precipitation
• Viral DNA was extracted using phenol-chloroform purification and concentrated via vacuum centrifugation
• Libraries were prepared using both PCR-based and PCR-free methods from the same sample extracts
• Sequencing was performed on Illumina platforms with equivalent coverage
• Bioinformatic analysis included viral operational taxonomic unit (vOTU) identification and diversity metrics calculation [69]

Whole Genome Sequencing Performance Protocol (adapted from PMC8913097):

• Reference standard NA12878 DNA was used for method comparison
• Libraries were prepared with PCR-based (1μg input) and PCR-free (1μg, 500ng, 300ng, 200ng inputs) protocols
• All libraries were sequenced on MGISEQ-2000 platform with PE150 reads
• Analysis included coverage uniformity, variant detection sensitivity/specificity, and coverage breadth for disease genes [70]

Cell-Free DNA Analysis Protocol (adapted from ScienceDirect):

• Archival plasma samples from cancer patients and healthy donors were used
• Matched samples were processed with PCR-based and PCR-free shallow WGS
• Mapping quality, unique read percentage, genome coverage, and copy number profiles were compared
• Samples from different collection tubes (EDTA and heparin) were evaluated [71]

Comparative Performance Data

The table below summarizes key performance metrics derived from multiple experimental comparisons:

Performance Metric	PCR-Based Protocol	PCR-Free Protocol	Experimental Context
Unique Reads (%)	85.1% (EDTA), 89.4% (heparin) [71]	96.4% (EDTA), 94.5% (heparin) [71]	Cell-free DNA sWGS
Sensitivity for Heterozygous SNPs	>99.77% [70]	>99.82% [70]	Whole genome sequencing
Sensitivity for Heterozygous Indels	Lower than PCR-free [70]	Significant improvement [70]	Whole genome sequencing
Low-Abundance Genome Recovery	Loss of lower-abundance vOTUs [69]	Preserved low-abundance vOTUs [69]	Virome characterization
Alpha Diversity (Chao1)	Significantly reduced (p=0.045) [69]	Higher diversity indices [69]	Virome characterization
GC Bias	Higher in extreme GC regions [68]	More uniform coverage [68]	Whole genome sequencing
Input DNA Requirement	Lower (can work with 1ng) [72]	Higher (typically 1μg recommended) [73] [72]	Library construction

Advantages and Limitations: A Balanced Perspective

Benefits and Drawbacks of Each Method

PCR-Based Advantages:

• Lower input requirements enable sequencing of limited samples [72]
• Compatible with degraded DNA commonly encountered in field-collected parasite samples [72]
• Increased library yield from trace starting material [68]
• Amplified signal facilitates detection in low-abundance applications [68]

PCR-Based Limitations:

• Amplification bias against high/low GC regions [68]
• PCR duplicates reduce effective sequencing depth [68]
• Potential for chimeric sequences formation [69]
• Underrepresentation of low-abundance species in complex mixtures [69]

PCR-Free Advantages:

• Reduced sequencing bias provides more accurate representation [69]
• Enhanced detection of low-abundance targets in metagenomic samples [69]
• Improved coverage uniformity across diverse genomic regions [68]
• Higher unique read percentage increases data utility [71]

PCR-Free Limitations:

• Higher DNA input requirements challenging with limited parasite material [73]
• Increased sensitivity to sample quality and degradation [72]
• More demanding library QC requirements [73]
• Potential need for specialized reagents and protocols [73]

Hybrid Approaches and Modern Alternatives

Some researchers have successfully employed single-cycle PCR approaches that combine benefits of both methods: creating fully double-stranded library molecules while minimizing PCR bias introduction [73]. Additionally, modern high-fidelity polymerases (e.g., Kapa HiFi, NEB Q5, QIAseq HiFi) have reduced but not eliminated amplification biases compared to earlier enzymes [73].

Application to Parasite Research: Special Considerations

Parasite-Specific Methodological Challenges

Parasite detection and genomic characterization present unique challenges that influence library preparation choices:

Sample Limitations:

• Clinical and environmental samples often contain low parasite burdens
• Host DNA contamination typically dominates clinical samples (e.g., blood, tissue)
• Complex cyst/oocyst walls impede DNA extraction, reducing yield and quality [53]

Genomic Considerations:

• Parasite genomes may exhibit atypical GC content that exacerbates PCR bias
• Repetitive elements and subtelomeric regions challenge uniform coverage
• Strain heterogeneity requires detection of minor variants

Recommended Strategies for Parasite Genomics

Based on comparative performance data and parasite-specific requirements:

For metagenomic parasite detection (e.g., from stool, water, food samples):

• PCR-free approaches are preferred when sufficient DNA is available (>50ng)
• Preserves detection sensitivity for low-abundance parasites in complex communities [69]
• Enables more accurate relative abundance quantification [20]

For low-input clinical samples (e.g., biopsy, blood, CSF):

• PCR-based methods may be necessary due to DNA limitations
• Target enrichment (hybrid capture or amplicon) can improve parasite detection [74]
• UMI incorporation helps mitigate PCR duplicate issues [72]

For whole genome sequencing of parasite isolates:

• PCR-free protocols deliver superior variant detection and genome assembly [70]
• Require robust DNA extraction methods optimized for specific parasite types [53]

Essential Reagents and Research Solutions

The table below outlines key reagents and materials required for implementing these library preparation methods:

Reagent/Material	Function in Library Prep	PCR-Based Requirement	PCR-Free Requirement
DNA Fragmentation Reagents	Fragment DNA to optimal size	Required (mechanical or enzymatic)	Required (mechanical or enzymatic)
End Repair Mix	Convert fragment ends to blunt, phosphorylated ends	Required	Required
A-Tailing Enzyme	Add A-overhangs for TA-ligation	Required	Required
Sequencing Adapters	Platform-specific adapters for sequencing	Required	Required
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Amplify library fragments	Essential	Not required
SPRI Beads	Size selection and purification	Required	Required
Library Quantification Kits	Accurately quantify library concentration	Required	Critical (higher precision needed)
Unique Molecular Indices (UMIs)	Tag individual molecules pre-amplification	Recommended to reduce duplicates	Optional

The choice between PCR-based and PCR-free library preparation methods represents a strategic decision with significant implications for downstream data quality and biological interpretations in parasite research.

Select PCR-based protocols when:

• Working with limited DNA input (<50ng) from precious parasite samples
• Cost and throughput are primary considerations
• Targeting moderate to high-abundance parasites where bias has minimal impact
• Using modern high-fidelity polymerases that reduce amplification artifacts

Opt for PCR-free protocols when:

• Detection of low-abundance parasites in complex mixtures is critical
• Quantitative accuracy of relative species abundance matters
• Studying parasites with extreme GC genomes or amplification-resistant regions
• Maximum variant detection sensitivity is required for population genomics
• Sufficient high-quality DNA is available (>100ng recommended)

As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, the distinction between these approaches may blur with emerging methods like single-molecule sequencing and improved enzymatic solutions. However, understanding the fundamental tradeoffs outlined in this guide will continue to inform optimal experimental design for parasite detection and genomic characterization.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized parasite detection, yet the accuracy of its results is fundamentally challenged by biases introduced during polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification. These biases, influenced by DNA secondary structure and PCR conditions, can skew data, leading to inaccurate representations of microbial and parasitic communities. This guide objectively compares how different NGS platforms and library preparation methods perform in the face of these technical challenges, providing a framework for selecting the optimal tools for parasite research.

In parasite genomics, targeted amplicon sequencing is a widespread and effective method for studying taxonomic structures and resistance markers [75] [10]. However, the targeted amplification step, while providing high resolution, simultaneously perturbs the initial community structure, reducing data robustness [75]. The core of the issue lies in selective amplification during PCR, where templates with different physical characteristics amplify at varying efficiencies. This is not a random noise but a systematic error influenced by factors like the energy of secondary structures of DNA templates and the GC content of the target region [75] [76]. For researchers tracking drug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum or monitoring complex parasitic communities, understanding and mitigating these biases is crucial, as they can alter perceived associations between a community's structure and biological outcomes [75] [10].

How DNA Secondary Structure and GC Content Introduce Bias

The PCR process is highly sensitive to the sequence composition of the DNA template, which can lead to preferential amplification of certain sequences over others.

• DNA Secondary Structure: Single-stranded DNA templates can spontaneously fold into stable secondary structures (e.g., hairpins) during or after the denaturation step. The stability of these structures depends on their Gibbs free energy (ΔG) [77]. If a template secondary structure is too stable and does not unfold even at the annealing temperature, the primers and polymerase cannot bind, significantly affecting or halting amplification [77]. This is especially critical in qPCR and amplicon sequencing [77].
• GC Content: Regions with extreme GC content (either GC-rich or GC-poor) are notoriously difficult to amplify uniformly [76]. GC-rich regions (>60%), such as CpG islands, can form stable secondary structures that hinder DNA amplification and sequencing enzyme activity, leading to their underrepresentation [76]. Conversely, GC-poor regions (<40%) may amplify less efficiently due to less stable DNA duplex formation [76].
• Other Primer and Template Effects: Additional sources of heterogeneity include differences in primer-template binding energies and the probability of self-annealing, which can discriminate against highly abundant templates [75].

Impact on Downstream Analysis and Data Integrity

The biases introduced during library preparation have direct and substantial consequences for downstream NGS data analysis:

• Variant Calling Accuracy: Regions poorly covered due to GC or PCR bias can yield false-negative results (missing true variants) or false positives from sequencing artifacts [76].
• Skewed Taxonomic Profiles: In microbiome and parasite community studies, PCR bias leads to non-linear and substantial changes (up to fivefold) in the relative abundances of taxa, compromising the accuracy of community structure analysis [75]. This is further complicated by the compositional nature of the data, where the relative abundance of one taxon is intrinsically linked to all others [75].
• Structural Variant Detection: Biases complicate the detection of copy number variations (CNVs), insertions, and deletions, as uneven coverage can obscure genuine genomic rearrangements [76].

Comparison of NGS Platforms and Methods

The choice of sequencing platform and library preparation method significantly influences the severity and impact of these biases. The following table compares the performance of different platforms and approaches based on key metrics relevant to bias and parasite detection.

Platform / Method	Key Feature	Coverage / Sensitivity	Advantages for Parasite Detection	Limitations / Bias Considerations
Illumina MiSeq (Amplicon)	Fluorescently labeled reversible-terminator nucleotides [10]	High mean coverage (e.g., 28,886 reads/amplicon); Can detect minor alleles down to 1% [10]	High accuracy; High multiplexing capacity (96 samples/run); Cost-effective vs. Sanger [10]	Remains susceptible to upstream PCR amplification biases introduced during library prep [75]
Ion Torrent PGM (Amplicon)	Semiconductor-based proton detection [10]	Lower mean coverage (e.g., 1,754 reads/amplicon); Can detect minor alleles down to 1% [10]	High accuracy; High multiplexing capacity (96 samples/run); Cost-effective vs. Sanger [10]	Remains susceptible to upstream PCR amplification biases [75]
Broad-Spectrum tNGS (bstNGS)	Probe-based enrichment of 1,872 microorganisms [78]	Detected 96.33% of mNGS findings and 91.15% of culture findings; Effective for low-load pathogens [78]	High diagnostic accuracy (90.67%); Reduces host background noise; Targeted approach improves reliability [78]	Scope limited by probe panel design; May miss novel or unanticipated pathogens [78]
Metagenomic NGS (mNGS)	Untargeted sequencing of all nucleic acids in a sample [78]	Broader pathogen discovery potential	Unbiased survey capable of detecting any microorganism, including unexpected parasites [78]	Expensive; Detection can be unstable due to host nucleic acid background; Lower accuracy for some microbes [78]
PCR-Free WGS	Eliminates PCR amplification from library prep [76]	Mitigates duplication artifacts and coverage bias	Ideal for variant calling and structural variant detection; Reduces false positives/negatives [76]	Requires high-input DNA; Not suitable for low-biomass samples (e.g., many parasite infections) [76]

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Bias

To ensure the reliability of NGS data, especially in a research context, it is critical to employ experimental designs that can identify and account for technical bias.

Protocol for Evaluating PCR Cycle Bias in Community Analysis

This protocol, adapted from a study on microbiome sequencing, traces how a microbial community changes through consecutive PCR cycles [75].

• Sample Preparation: Extract DNA from a complex, native sample (e.g., human stool). Use a single DNA extraction kit and batch to minimize batch effects.
• Library Preparation: Amplify the target region (e.g., 16S V4 rRNA) using universal primers. Set up a single master mix for all reactions and distribute it into multiple PCR tubes.
• Cycle Optimization: Run a preliminary qPCR assay to determine the range of cycles within the log-linear amplification phase.
• Cycle Sampling: In a single thermocycler run, remove a subset of replicate tubes (e.g., 12 per cycle) at specific cycle numbers (e.g., cycles 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Randomize tube placement within the thermocycler to control for spatial temperature variations.
• Sequencing and Analysis: Sequence all amplicons simultaneously. Analyze the dynamics of the microbial community across cycles using a mathematical model that assumes heterogeneity in amplification efficiencies and the compositional nature of the data. This reveals which taxa are over- or under-represented due to PCR bias [75].

Protocol for Comparing NGS Platforms for SNP Calling

This protocol, used for profiling Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers, validates NGS findings against a gold standard [10].

• Sample Selection: Use a set of clinical samples (e.g., whole blood and RDT samples) and artificial mixtures of reference strain DNA (e.g., 3D7 and K1) at known ratios.
• Parallel Library Preparation: For the same set of samples, prepare sequencing libraries for two NGS platforms (e.g., Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq) using Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs) for the same set of drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, pfcytochrome b).
• Sequencing and Bioinformatics: Sequence the libraries on their respective platforms. Process the data through standardized bioinformatics pipelines for each platform to call SNPs.
• Validation and Metrics Calculation: Use conventional Sanger sequencing of the same samples as a reference. Compare the SNP calls from both NGS platforms to the Sanger results to calculate sequencing accuracy, variant accuracy, false positive rate, and false negative rate. Assess alternative allele detection by comparing the known ratios in the artificial mixtures to the frequencies reported by each platform [10].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Reagents and Materials

The following table details essential reagents and materials used in the featured experiments for NGS-based parasite detection and bias evaluation.

Item Name	Function / Application	Experimental Context
Universal 16S V4 rRNA Primers (F515/R806)	Amplify the hypervariable V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene for taxonomic profiling [75]	Evaluating PCR cycle bias in microbial communities [75]
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	PCR enzyme with proofreading activity to reduce errors during amplification [75]	General use in NGS library preparation for accurate amplification [75]
PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit	Extract high-quality microbial DNA from complex samples like stool [75]	Preparing template DNA for amplicon sequencing [75]
TaqMan Probes	Fluorescently labeled hydrolysis probes for specific target detection in real-time PCR[qPCR] [79]	Quantitative PCR (qPCR) and target-specific detection in NGS assays [79]
Geneplus bstNGS Probes	A panel of 1,872 capture probes for enriching microbial nucleic acids [78]	Targeted detection of a broad spectrum of pathogens in BALF samples from ICU patients [78]
Illumina MiSeq Reagent Kit	Chemistry and flow cell for sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform [75]	Performing targeted amplicon deep sequencing (TADs) [75] [10]

The following diagram illustrates the general workflow of targeted NGS for parasite detection, highlighting key stages where bias is introduced and corresponding mitigation strategies.

Key Takeaways for Researchers

• Acknowledge Inherent Bias: PCR amplification bias is an inherent property of multi-template reactions and cannot be entirely eliminated, only mitigated [75]. The choice between NGS platforms like Illumina MiSeq and Ion Torrent PGM may be less critical for final SNP call accuracy, as both can perform excellently when validated [10]. The greater differentiator lies in upstream library preparation.
• Select the Right Tool for the Question: For well-defined targets like specific parasite resistance markers, targeted NGS (tNGS or bstNGS) offers a superior balance of sensitivity, cost, and resistance to background noise [10] [78]. For discovery-based applications where the pathogen is unknown, mNGS remains indispensable despite its higher cost and host background challenges [78].
• Implement Rigorous Experimental Design: Incorporate technical controls such as mock communities (for microbiome studies) and artificial mixtures of known ratios (for SNP detection) to quantify the level of bias in your specific workflow [75] [10]. Using a standardized, minimized PCR cycle number and robust primer design principles is a foundational first step to reducing bias [75] [80].
• Leverage Bioinformatics: Actively use bioinformatic tools for GC normalization and duplicate read removal to correct for biases that could otherwise lead to false variant calls and inaccurate community profiles [76].

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized parasite detection research, enabling precise identification of pathogens that were previously difficult to diagnose. However, the massive data volumes and computational demands of NGS analysis present significant challenges for research laboratories. The global DNA sequencing market is predicted to grow from $15.7 billion in 2021 to $37.7 billion by 2026, driven by rising infectious disease research and diagnostic needs [81]. This data deluge threatens to overwhelm traditional computational infrastructure, creating an urgent need for scalable solutions.

Cloud automation offers a transformative approach to these challenges, providing researchers with powerful tools for managing complex computational workflows. By implementing automated, cloud-based strategies, scientists can achieve unprecedented levels of scalability, reproducibility, and efficiency in parasite genomics research. This guide compares the performance of different NGS approaches within automated cloud environments, providing evidence-based recommendations for parasite detection applications.

NGS Technology Landscape and Cloud Integration

Sequencing Technology Options

NGS technologies fall into two primary categories: short-read and long-read sequencing. Short-read technologies (second-generation NGS) from platforms like Illumina remain the fastest and most cost-effective approach, producing highly accurate data ideal for standard pathogen identification [81]. Long-read technologies (third-generation NGS) from Oxford Nanopore Technologies and PacBio have overcome initial accuracy limitations and now provide superior capabilities for resolving complex genomic regions, structural variants, and highly repetitive sequences common in parasite genomes [81].

The fundamental mechanism behind cloud automation involves creating scripts, workflows, or policies that define specific task execution within a cloud ecosystem [82]. These automated processes respond to triggers, events, or predefined schedules, allowing seamless management of cloud resources and computational workflows essential for NGS analysis.

Key NGS Platforms for Parasite Research

Platform	Technology Type	Key Features	Parasite Research Applications
Illumina NovaSeq X Series	Short-read sequencing	Ultra-high throughput (>20,000 genomes/year), XLEAP-SBS chemistry [83]	Large-scale parasite genomic epidemiology, population studies
Oxford Nanopore PromethION	Long-read sequencing	Real-time sequencing, adaptive sampling, up to 200Gb per flow cell [81]	Complex parasite genome assembly, structural variant detection
PacBio Revio	Long-read sequencing	HiFi reads >15kb at >99.9% accuracy [81]	Resolving repetitive regions in parasite genomes, haplotyping
Element AVITI	Short-read sequencing	Q40-level accuracy, 300bp reads, cost-effective benchtop design [81]	Routine parasite surveillance, diagnostic development
Ion Torrent Genexus	Short-read sequencing	Fully automated specimen-to-report in one day [81]	Rapid clinical parasite detection, time-sensitive investigations

Performance Comparison of NGS Methods in Respiratory Infection Diagnostics

A comprehensive 2025 study published in Scientific Reports directly compared the diagnostic performance of three NGS methodologies—metagenomic NGS (mNGS), amplification-based targeted NGS (tNGS), and capture-based tNGS—providing valuable insights applicable to parasite detection research [13].

Experimental Protocol and Methodology

The study analyzed 205 patients with suspected lower respiratory tract infections, collecting bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples for parallel testing with all three NGS methods [13]. Key methodological components included:

• Sample Preparation: BALF samples were divided equally for processing by each NGS method, maintained at ≤-20°C during transport to preserve nucleic acid integrity [13].
• Library Construction:
  • mNGS: Used Illumina Nextseq 550Dx with 75-bp single-end reads following human DNA depletion [13].
  • Amplification-based tNGS: Employed ultra-multiplex PCR amplification with 198 pathogen-specific primers on Illumina MiniSeq [13].
  • Capture-based tNGS: Utilized probe-based target enrichment with mechanical disruption via vortex mixer and beads [13].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: All methods included rigorous quality control, human sequence removal, and alignment to pathogen databases [13].
• Validation: Comprehensive clinical diagnosis served as reference standard, determined by multiple clinicians incorporating all available clinical and laboratory data [13].

Comparative Performance Metrics

Parameter	Metagenomic NGS	Capture-based tNGS	Amplification-based tNGS
Total Species Identified	80 species	71 species	65 species
Diagnostic Accuracy	Lower than capture-based	93.17%	Lower than capture-based
Analytical Sensitivity	High	99.43%	Variable (40.23% for gram-positive bacteria)
DNA Virus Specificity	Not specified	74.78%	98.25%
Turnaround Time	20 hours	Shorter than mNGS	Shortest (alternative for rapid results)
Cost per Sample	$840	Lower than mNGS	Lowest (suited for limited resources)
Resource Intensity	High	Moderate	Low

Performance data adapted from Scientific Reports 2025 study of 205 patients with lower respiratory infections [13]

Cloud Automation Framework for NGS Analysis

Architectural Components

Automated cloud solutions for NGS analysis incorporate several key components that work in concert to deliver scalable, reproducible computational environments:

Automated NGS Analysis Pipeline: This workflow demonstrates the seamless integration of cloud components for scalable parasite genomics research.

Automation Advantages for Parasite Research

Cloud automation provides specific benefits for parasite detection research:

• Cost Efficiency: Automated provisioning and de-provisioning of resources ensures researchers only pay for actual compute time, significantly reducing operational expenditures [82]. A study comparing NGS methods found nearly 3-fold cost differences between approaches, making cost management essential [13].

• Enhanced Scalability: Cloud systems automatically scale computing resources to accommodate variable workloads, crucial for processing large parasite genomic datasets during outbreak investigations [82].

• Reproducibility: Automated workflow systems like Galaxy ensure consistent analysis protocols across research teams and studies, maintaining methodological rigor in multi-center parasite genomic studies [84].

• Accelerated Discovery: Automated deployment of bioinformatics tools reduces computational barriers, allowing parasite researchers to focus on biological interpretation rather than software configuration [84].

Implementation Strategy: Automated NGS Workflow for Parasite Detection

Research Reagent Solutions and Computational Tools

Resource	Function	Application in Parasite Research
Galaxy Platform	Web-based workflow management	Provides accessible interface for complex NGS analysis pipelines [84]
Globus Transfer	High-performance data transfer	Enables secure movement of large NGS datasets to cloud infrastructure [84]
HTCondor Scheduler	High-throughput computing	Manages parallel execution of compute-intensive tasks like alignment [84]
QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit	Nucleic acid extraction	Purifies pathogen DNA from clinical samples while removing host contamination [13]
Illumina RNA Prep with Enrichment	Target enrichment	Enhances detection of specific parasite targets in complex samples
Burrows-Wheeler Aligner	Sequence alignment	Maps NGS reads to reference parasite genomes [13]
Cufflinks	Transcriptome assembly	Analyzes parasite gene expression and splicing variants [84]

Automated Analysis Workflow

Parasite Detection Automation: This workflow illustrates the automated steps from sample to report for parasite detection research.

Based on comparative performance data and cloud automation capabilities, parasite researchers should consider the following strategic approaches:

For comprehensive pathogen detection in exploratory studies or when investigating novel parasites, metagenomic NGS provides the broadest detection capability, identifying the highest number of species (80 species vs. 71 for capture-based tNGS and 65 for amplification-based tNGS) [13]. Though more costly ($840/sample) and time-consuming (20 hours turnaround), its unbiased approach is invaluable for detecting unexpected or novel parasites [13].

For routine diagnostic applications where target parasites are known, capture-based tNGS offers superior performance with 93.17% accuracy and 99.43% sensitivity, making it ideal for validated parasite detection panels [13]. The cloud automation framework efficiently manages the computational demands of capture-based approaches while controlling costs.

For rapid screening or resource-limited settings, amplification-based tNGS provides a cost-effective alternative with the shortest turnaround time, though researchers should verify its sensitivity for their specific parasite targets [13].

Cloud automation platforms address the key challenges of scalability, reproducibility, and computational efficiency across all NGS approaches. By implementing automated, cloud-based strategies, parasite researchers can leverage the full potential of NGS technologies while maintaining rigorous analytical standards and accelerating scientific discovery.

This guide provides a comparative analysis of bioinformatics pipelines for two critical tasks in next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis: taxonomic classification for pathogen detection and genomic variant calling. For researchers in parasite detection and drug development, selecting the appropriate tools and platforms is crucial for generating accurate, reliable results.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized genomic research, but the computational analysis of the vast datasets they produce presents significant challenges. Bioinformatics pipelines are essential for transforming raw sequencing data into meaningful biological insights, with two primary applications being taxonomic classification (identifying the organisms present in a sample) and variant calling (identifying genetic variations compared to a reference genome). The choice of pipeline can substantially impact results, as different algorithms exhibit varying performance in accuracy, sensitivity, and computational efficiency [85].

For parasitic disease research, specific challenges include the complexity of bioinformatics analysis, reliance on incomplete reference databases, and accessibility barriers for non-specialists [28]. This guide compares established methodologies and emerging solutions to help researchers navigate these complexities.

Comparative Analysis of Taxonomic Classification Methods

Taxonomic classification involves assigning sequence reads to specific taxonomic units, which is fundamental for pathogen identification in metagenomic studies.

Specialized Platforms for Parasite Identification

The Parasite Genome Identification Platform (PGIP) is a specialized web server designed to simplify and accelerate the taxonomic identification of parasite genomes from metagenomic NGS data. It features a curated database of 280 high-quality, non-redundant parasite genomes and an automated analysis workflow that requires minimal bioinformatics expertise [28].

• Database Curation: PGIP's reference database is systematically constructed from multiple sources (NCBI, WormBase, ENA, VEuPathDB) and rigorously filtered for quality and accurate species-level classification. Redundant sequences are removed using CD-HIT with a 95% identity threshold [28].
• Analysis Workflow: The platform employs a standardized pipeline that includes host DNA depletion, quality control, and parasite identification through both read mapping and assembly-based approaches [28].
• Performance: Validation studies demonstrate PGIP's capability for precise species-level resolution, making it compatible with clinical samples and useful for public health settings [28].

Comparison of Metagenomic vs. Targeted Sequencing

For lower respiratory infections, which share diagnostic challenges with parasitic diseases, different NGS approaches show distinct performance characteristics:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of NGS Methods in Pathogen Detection

Sequencing Method	Number of Species Identified	Accuracy	Sensitivity	Turnaround Time	Cost
Metagenomic NGS (mNGS)	80 species	Lower than tNGS	High	20 hours	$840 [13]
Capture-based tNGS	71 species	93.17%	99.43%	Not specified	Lower than mNGS [13]
Amplification-based tNGS	65 species	Lower than capture-based tNGS	40.23% (gram-positive bacteria), 71.74% (gram-negative bacteria)	Not specified	Lower than mNGS [13]

These findings suggest that while mNGS detects the broadest range of pathogens, capture-based tNGS offers superior accuracy and sensitivity for routine diagnostics, making it potentially valuable for specific parasite detection [13].

Platform Comparison: Illumina vs. BGI

A prospective study comparing the two major sequencing platforms for pulmonary pathogen detection found no significant difference in diagnostic sensitivity between Illumina (76.9%) and BGI (82.1%). Both platforms significantly outperformed conventional examination methods (38.5%) [86].

Comparative Analysis of Variant Calling Pipelines

Variant calling involves identifying genetic variations such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and insertions/deletions (indels) from sequenced DNA.

Performance Benchmarking of Variant Calling Software

A comprehensive benchmarking study evaluated four commercial variant calling software packages using Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) gold standard datasets:

Table 2: Performance of Variant Calling Software on Whole-Exome Sequencing Data

Software	SNV Precision/Recall	Indel Precision/Recall	Runtime (Range)	Key Characteristics
Illumina DRAGEN Enrichment	>99%	>96%	29-36 minutes	Highest precision and recall for SNVs and indels [87]
CLC Genomics Workbench	High (specific values not provided)	High (specific values not provided)	6-25 minutes	Fastest processing times [87]
Partek Flow (GATK)	Moderate (specific values not provided)	Moderate (specific values not provided)	3.6-29.7 hours	Utilizes GATK best practices [87]
Partek Flow (Freebayes + Samtools)	Lower than other software	Lowest performance	3.6-29.7 hours	Unionized variant calls from multiple callers [87]
Varsome Clinical	High (specific values not provided)	High (specific values not provided)	Not specified	Web-based clinical analysis platform [87]

The study reported that all four software packages shared 98-99% similarity in true positive variants, despite differences in their absolute counts [87].

Emerging AI-Based Variant Callers

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized variant calling, with several tools demonstrating improved accuracy over traditional methods:

• DeepVariant: An open-source deep learning-based tool that uses convolutional neural networks to analyze pileup images of aligned reads. It supports both short-read and long-read technologies and automatically produces filtered variants without need for post-calling refinement [88].
• DeepTrio: An extension of DeepVariant designed for analyzing family trio data, jointly analyzing sequencing data from a child and both parents to improve accuracy, especially in challenging genomic regions [88].
• DNAscope: Sentieon's optimized variant caller that combines GATK's HaplotypeCaller with machine learning-based genotyping. It offers high accuracy with significantly reduced computational cost compared to other tools [88].
• Clair and Clair3: Deep learning-based variant callers that specialize in both short-read and long-read data, with Clair3 showing particular improvements in performance at lower coverages [88].

Comprehensive Analysis Platforms

For researchers seeking integrated solutions, platforms like COSAP (Comparative Sequencing Analysis Platform) provide multiple algorithmic options within a unified interface. COSAP includes 11 variant callers for different applications and supports various preprocessing, annotation, and interpretation tools, enabling comparative analysis of different algorithmic combinations [85].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking

To ensure reproducible and reliable results, standardized experimental protocols are essential for evaluating bioinformatics pipelines.

Protocol for Variant Caller Benchmarking

The benchmarking study cited in Table 2 followed this rigorous methodology [87]:

• Data Acquisition: Three GIAB whole-exome sequencing datasets (HG001, HG002, HG003) were retrieved from NCBI Sequence Read Archive.
• Alignment: All samples were aligned to the human reference genome GRCh38.
• Variant Calling: Four software packages (Illumina DRAGEN, CLC, Partek Flow, Varsome Clinical) were used for variant calling with default settings.
• Evaluation: Generated VCF files were evaluated using the Variant Calling Assessment Tool (VCAT) against GIAB gold standard high-confidence regions.
• Performance Metrics: Analysis included true positives, false positives, false negatives, precision, recall, and F1 scores for both SNVs and indels.

Protocol for Taxonomic Classification Assessment

Studies comparing taxonomic classification methods typically follow this general approach [13] [86]:

• Sample Collection: Clinical samples (e.g., bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, tissue biopsies) are collected with appropriate controls.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: DNA and/or RNA extraction is performed using commercial kits.
• Library Preparation: Libraries are prepared following platform-specific protocols.
• Sequencing: Samples are run on the platforms being compared (e.g., Illumina, BGI).
• Bioinformatics Analysis: Data processed through standardized pipelines for quality control, host sequence depletion, and taxonomic classification.
• Validation: Results are compared against conventional diagnostic methods and clinical assessments.

Visualization of Bioinformatics Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the key workflows for taxonomic classification and variant calling, highlighting the sequential steps and decision points in each process.

Workflow for Taxonomic Classification of Parasites

Generic Variant Calling Pipeline

Successful implementation of bioinformatics pipelines requires both computational tools and curated biological references.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Taxonomic Classification and Variant Calling

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Reference Genomes	GRCh38 (human), GIAB benchmarks, PGIP parasite database	Provide standardized references for alignment and variant calling [87] [28]
Gold Standard Datasets	Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) HG001-7	Enable benchmarking and validation of variant calling methods [87]
Quality Control Tools	Fastp, FastQC, Trimmomatic	Perform adapter removal, quality filtering, and read preprocessing [85] [28]
Alignment Algorithms	BWA, Bowtie2, BWA-MEM	Map sequencing reads to reference genomes [87] [85]
Variant Annotation Tools	Ensembl VEP, SnpEFF, Annovar	Provide functional interpretation of called variants [85]
Metagenomic Databases	HROM (Human Reference Oral Microbiome), CARD (Antibiotic Resistance)	Enable accurate taxonomic classification and resistance gene detection [89] [90]

The choice of bioinformatics pipeline significantly impacts the results of taxonomic classification and variant calling analyses. For taxonomic classification in parasite research, specialized platforms like PGIP and capture-based tNGS offer the best balance of accuracy and sensitivity, while for variant calling, AI-based tools like DeepVariant and DNAscope demonstrate superior performance compared to traditional methods.

Researchers should select pipelines based on their specific applications, considering factors such as accuracy requirements, computational resources, and available expertise. As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, benchmarking against gold standards and using integrated platforms like COSAP will remain essential for ensuring reproducible and reliable results in genomic research.

NGS Platform Showdown: A Data-Driven Comparison for Parasitology

The application of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in parasite detection and research represents a powerful shift from traditional, often limited, diagnostic methods. For researchers and drug development professionals, selecting the optimal sequencing platform is a critical decision that directly impacts data quality, operational efficiency, and research outcomes. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of contemporary NGS platforms, focusing on the core metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and cost. These benchmarks are essential for designing robust parasite detection studies, identifying genetic diversity within and between parasite populations, and advancing the development of novel therapeutic agents. The rapidly evolving landscape of sequencing technologies, marked by continuous improvements in accuracy and reductions in cost, makes an evidence-based comparison indispensable for the scientific community [27] [91].

Core Performance Metrics Explained

In the context of NGS for parasite detection, performance metrics quantify a platform's ability to correctly identify a parasite's genetic material within a sample.

• Sensitivity refers to the probability that the test will correctly detect the presence of parasite DNA or RNA when it is truly present. It is a measure of the true positive rate. High sensitivity is crucial for detecting low-abundance parasites or subclinical infections.
• Specificity refers to the probability that the test will correctly yield a negative result when the parasite is absent. It measures the true negative rate and is vital for avoiding false positives that could misdirect research or clinical decisions.
• Cost encompasses not only the initial price of sequencing reagents and consumables but also the investments in instrumentation, data analysis, and personnel time. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary for sustainable research programs [92] [93].

Comparative Analysis of Leading NGS Platforms

The following analysis synthesizes data from recent performance evaluations and market studies to compare the strengths and limitations of major short-read and long-read sequencing platforms.

Platform Specifications and Performance

Table 1: Key Specifications and Performance Metrics of Major NGS Platforms

Platform (Company)	Technology	Read Length	Key Metric (Accuracy/Error Rate)	Strengths	Limitations
NovaSeq X (Illumina) [94] [91]	Short-Read (SBS)	Short-Read	Q30 (99.9% accuracy) [91]	High throughput, industry standard, broad application support [27]	High instrument cost, short reads may miss complex genomic regions
Sikun 2000 [94]	Short-Read (SBS)	Short-Read	Q20: 98.52%; Q30: 93.36% [94]	Low duplication rate, high sequencing depth, competitive SNV detection [94]	Lower Indel detection performance vs. Illumina [94]
Onso (PacBio) [61] [91]	Short-Read (Sequencing by Binding)	Short-Read	Q40 (99.99% accuracy) [91]	Very high accuracy, suitable for rare variant detection [91]	Newer platform, emerging ecosystem
Revio (PacBio) [61] [91]	Long-Read (SMRT)	10-25 kb	HiFi Reads: Q30-Q40 (99.9-99.99% accuracy) [61]	Long reads for complex regions, high single-read accuracy [61]	Higher cost per sample than short-read platforms
Oxford Nanopore [27] [61]	Long-Read (Nanopore)	Average 10-30 kb	Duplex Reads: >Q30 (>99.9% accuracy) [61]	Ultra-long reads, real-time analysis, portable options [27] [61]	Historically higher error rates, though improving [27]

Analysis of Sensitivity and Specificity

Recent independent evaluations provide direct comparisons of variant detection sensitivity, a key proxy for pathogen detection performance. A 2025 study comparing the Sikun 2000 to Illumina's NovaSeq 6000 and NovaSeq X on human genomic samples found that the Sikun 2000 demonstrated a slightly higher Recall (Sensitivity) for Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) at 97.24%, compared to 97.02% for the NovaSeq 6000 and 96.84% for the NovaSeq X [94]. This high sensitivity for SNVs is advantageous for identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms in parasite genomes.

However, the same study revealed that the Sikun 2000's sensitivity for Insertion-Deletion (Indel) variants was lower (83.08%) than both NovaSeq 6000 (87.08%) and NovaSeq X (86.74%) [94]. This is a critical consideration for parasite research, as indel mutations can be functionally important. For applications requiring the highest possible base-level accuracy, platforms like PacBio's Onso and Element Biosciences' AVITI now offer Q40 accuracy (99.99%), reducing false positive base calls and thus increasing specificity for variant detection [91].

Long-read platforms from PacBio and Oxford Nanopore provide a different kind of sensitivity: the ability to detect and resolve complex genomic regions, extensive repeats, or structural variations that are often inaccessible to short-read technologies [61]. This is particularly valuable for de novo genome assembly of novel parasites or for characterizing complex, multi-gene families involved in host immune evasion.

Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The financial outlay for NGS involves multiple components. The consumables and reagents segment dominates the product market, holding a 58% share, underscoring the recurring costs of sequencing [95]. However, the total cost must be evaluated in the context of diagnostic efficiency and patient outcomes.

A 2024 health economic study on using targeted NGS (tNGS) for drug-resistant tuberculosis found that its cost-effectiveness is highly context-dependent. In India, tNGS dominated standard in-country practices by providing better health outcomes at a lower total cost. In South Africa, it was cost-effective, while in Georgia, it was not under baseline conditions [92]. This highlights the need for localized cost-benefit analyses.

Another 2025 pilot study on metagenomic NGS (mNGS) for central nervous system infections found that while the per-test detection cost for mNGS was higher (¥4,000 vs. ¥2,000 for culture), it led to significantly shorter turnaround times and lower subsequent anti-infective drug costs (¥18,000 vs. ¥23,000). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) suggested that mNGS was a cost-effective option when considering the value of a timely diagnosis [93].

Table 2: Cost-Effectiveness Considerations in Different Healthcare Settings

Setting / Application	Technology	Cost Comparison	Effectiveness / Outcome	Cost-Effectiveness Verdict
TB Detection (India) [92]	Targeted NGS (tNGS)	Lower cost than in-country DST	Greater health impact	Cost-effective (dominates standard)
TB Detection (South Africa) [92]	Targeted NGS (tNGS)	Higher cost than standard	Greater health impact	Cost-effective
TB Detection (Georgia) [92]	Targeted NGS (tNGS)	Higher cost than standard	Greater health impact	Not cost-effective under baseline conditions
CNS Infection Diagnosis [93]	mNGS	Higher detection cost, lower drug costs	Shorter time to result, targeted therapy	Cost-effective (considering outcome gains)

Experimental Protocols for Platform Benchmarking

To ensure a fair and objective comparison of NGS platforms for a specific research goal, a standardized benchmarking experiment is essential. The following protocol, adapted from a 2025 study, provides a robust framework [94].

Sample Preparation and Benchmarking Workflow

A rigorous benchmark requires well-characterized reference samples. For parasite research, this could involve DNA from a defined parasite culture spiked into host DNA at known concentrations to simulate infection.

Key Reagent Solutions for NGS Library Preparation

The library preparation step is critical for data quality. The market for these reagents is projected to grow significantly, reaching USD 4.83 billion by 2032 [96]. Key reagents include:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for NGS Workflows

Reagent / Kit	Function	Application Note
Fragmentation Enzymes	Shears DNA/RNA to desired size for sequencing.	Critical for controlling insert size distribution and library yield.
Library Preparation Kit	End-repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation for sequencing.	Kits are often platform-specific (e.g., Illumina, MGI, PacBio) [96].
Target Enrichment Panels	Biotinylated probes to capture genomic regions of interest.	Essential for targeted NGS (tNGS) to enrich for parasite genes amidst host background [92].
PCR Amplification Mix	Amplifies the adapter-ligated library for quantification.	High-fidelity polymerase is crucial to minimize PCR errors and duplicates.
Quality Control Kits	Bioanalyzer/TapeStation assays to quantify and size library fragments.	A mandatory step to ensure library quality before the costly sequencing run.

The choice of an NGS platform for parasite research involves balancing multiple competing factors. There is no single "best" platform; the optimal choice depends on the specific research question.

• For large-scale, high-throughput surveillance studies or variant screening where cost-per-sample is a primary driver and a high-quality reference genome is available, short-read platforms like Illumina's NovaSeq X or the Sikun 2000 offer compelling value, with the latter showing particular strength in SNV sensitivity and data uniformity [94] [91].
• For applications demanding the utmost base-level accuracy, such as detecting very low-frequency drug-resistance mutations, emerging short-read platforms like PacBio's Onso with Q40 accuracy are setting a new benchmark [91].
• For discovering complex genomic rearrangements, assembling novel parasite genomes, or resolving haplotypes without a reference, long-read platforms from PacBio (HiFi) and Oxford Nanopore (Duplex) are unparalleled, with their historically higher error rates now being addressed by advanced chemistries [61] [91].

Ultimately, researchers must align their platform selection with their primary objective: whether it is maximizing sensitivity for known variants, exploring the unknown reaches of parasite genomes, or optimizing for the economic constraints of a large-scale study. As technologies continue to converge and improve, this benchmark will evolve, further empowering scientists in the fight against parasitic diseases.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized genetic research and clinical diagnostics, yet significant challenges persist in accurately detecting variants in complex genomic regions. Approximately 10-20% of the human genome contains repetitive structures, low-complexity sequences, and homologous regions that complicate accurate variant calling [97]. These challenging regions include segmental duplications, tandem repeats, and high-GC content areas where short-read technologies struggle with alignment and mapping accuracy. For parasite research, these challenges are compounded by the need to distinguish pathogen DNA from host background and to resolve complex, diverse genomic architectures.

The clinical implications of variant calling inaccuracies in these regions are substantial. Studies have shown that variants in tandem repeats longer than short reads can cause muscular dystrophy, large structural variants can cause intellectual disability disorders, and variants in genes with closely related pseudogenes (such as PMS2, which causes Lynch Syndrome) present particular diagnostic challenges [97]. In parasitology, accurate variant calling is essential for understanding drug resistance mechanisms, virulence factors, and population dynamics.

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of sequencing platforms and bioinformatic approaches for optimizing variant calling performance in these difficult genomic regions, with specific consideration for parasite detection research.

Sequencing Platform Comparison: Technological Approaches

Short-Read Sequencing Technologies

Short-read sequencing platforms, particularly Illumina's Sequencing by Synthesis (SBS) technology, have become the workhorse of genomic research due to their high base-level accuracy and cost-effectiveness. These technologies generate billions of short reads (typically 50-300 base pairs) with per-base error rates of approximately 0.1% [4]. The high accuracy is achieved through massive parallel sequencing and redundant coverage, where each base is sequenced multiple times.

However, short-read technologies face inherent limitations in challenging genomic regions. The fundamental constraint is read length, which prevents spanning across repetitive elements or structural variants. In parasite genomics, this manifests as difficulties in resolving tandemly repeated gene families, telomeric regions, and structural variations that are common in pathogen genomes. Short reads also struggle with phasing haplotypes, which is crucial for understanding antigenic variation in parasites [97] [4].

Long-Read Sequencing Technologies

Long-read sequencing technologies address the fundamental limitation of short reads by generating sequences thousands to millions of bases in length. Two primary platforms dominate this space: PacBio HiFi (High Fidelity) sequencing and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT).

PacBio HiFi sequencing employs a unique circular consensus sequencing approach that repeatedly sequences the same DNA molecule, resulting in reads of 15,000-20,000 bases with accuracy exceeding 99.9% [17]. This technology excels in variant detection, including single nucleotide variants (SNVs), insertions-deletions (indels), and structural variants (SVs), while simultaneously detecting base modifications like 5mC methylation.

Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequences DNA or RNA molecules in real-time as they pass through protein nanopores, capable of generating ultra-long reads sometimes exceeding hundreds of thousands of bases [17]. While traditional Nanopore sequencing had higher error rates (5-15%), recent improvements have significantly enhanced accuracy. This technology offers portability and the ability to detect a flexible set of base modifications.

Table 1: Comparison of Long-Read Sequencing Technologies

Parameter	PacBio HiFi Sequencing	ONT Nanopore Sequencing
Read Length	500 to 20,000 bases	20 to >4,000,000 bases
Read Accuracy	Q33 (99.95%)	~Q20 (99%)
Typical Run Time	24 hours	72 hours
Variant Calling - SNV	Yes	Yes
Variant Calling - Indels	Yes	No [17]
Variant Calling - SVs	Yes	Yes
Detectable DNA Modifications	5mC, 6mA	5mC, 5hmC, and 6mA
Typical Output File Size	30-60 GB (BAM)	~1300 GB (fast5/pod5)

Targeted Sequencing Approaches

Targeted NGS (tNGS) enriches specific genomic regions of interest through amplification-based or capture-based methods prior to sequencing. Amplification-based tNGS uses multiplex PCR to amplify targeted regions, while capture-based tNGS uses biotinylated probes to pull down regions of interest [13]. For parasite research, tNGS enables focused sequencing of virulence genes, drug resistance markers, or taxonomic marker genes with reduced sequencing costs and improved sensitivity for low-abundance pathogens.

Recent studies demonstrate that capture-based tNGS shows significantly higher diagnostic performance compared to metagenomic NGS (mNGS) for respiratory infections, with an accuracy of 93.17% and sensitivity of 99.43% [13]. The amplification-based tNGS exhibited poor sensitivity for both gram-positive (40.23%) and gram-negative bacteria (71.74%) but showed higher specificity for DNA viruses (98.25%) compared to capture-based tNGS (74.78%) [13].

Hybrid and Integrated Approaches

Emerging hybrid approaches combine short-read and long-read technologies to leverage their complementary strengths. The DNAscope Hybrid pipeline represents one such innovation, performing integrated alignment and variant calling from combined short and long-read data [98]. This approach significantly improves SNP and indel calling accuracy, particularly in complex genomic regions, outperforming standalone short- or long-read pipelines even with lower coverage (5x-10x long reads versus 30x-35x for standalone) [98].

For viromics and parasite research, studies show that hybrid assembly combining Illumina and Nanopore reads reduces error rates to levels comparable with short-read-only assemblies while improving genome completeness [99]. This approach is particularly valuable for resolving complex viral or parasite genomes with repetitive regions or hypervariable sequences.

Comparative Performance Analysis

Variant Calling Accuracy Across Genomic Contexts

The performance of sequencing technologies varies dramatically across different genomic contexts. In standard, non-repetitive regions, short-read technologies excel at detecting single nucleotide variants with accuracy rates exceeding 99.9% [97]. However, this performance degrades in challenging regions.

Recent benchmarks reveal that for small variant calling, the best methods achieve SNV accuracy around 99.92% recall at 99.97% precision in benchmark regions, while small insertion and deletion mutations perform approximately an order of magnitude worse with 99.3% recall at 99.5% precision [97]. Error rates are significantly higher in difficult genomic regions not covered by standard benchmarks.

In parasite genomics, the ability to detect structural variations is particularly important for understanding genome plasticity and adaptation. Long-read technologies demonstrate superior performance for detecting large structural variants, with PacBio HiFi sequencing providing high confidence across variant types [17].

Table 2: Variant Calling Performance Across Technologies

Variant Type	Short-Read NGS	PacBio HiFi	ONT Nanopore	Hybrid Approach
SNVs (easy regions)	99.9% accuracy	>99.9% accuracy	~99% accuracy	>99.9% accuracy
SNVs (challenging regions)	<95% accuracy	>99.9% accuracy	~98% accuracy	>99% accuracy
Small Indels	99.3% recall	High accuracy	Limited capability	>99% accuracy
Structural Variants	Limited detection	Comprehensive detection	Comprehensive detection	Enhanced detection
Phasing	Limited	Haplotype-resolved	Haplotype-resolved	Haplotype-resolved

Performance in Specific Research Applications

Rare Disease Diagnosis: In clinical diagnostics for rare genetic diseases, whole-genome sequencing with advanced bioinformatics has demonstrated remarkable success in resolving previously undiagnosed cases. At the ACMG 2025 conference, Illumina presented cases where sophisticated bioinformatic tools enabled detection of transposable element insertions and uniparental disomy that had eluded previous testing [100]. These solutions are directly relevant to parasite research, where mobile genetic elements and complex inheritance patterns present similar challenges.

Infectious Disease Detection: For pathogen detection, targeted NGS shows comparable sensitivity (74.75% vs 78.64%) and specificity (81.82% vs 93.94%) to mNGS for lower respiratory tract infections [34]. However, tNGS demonstrates specific advantages for fungal detection, with significantly higher sensitivity (27.94% vs 17.65%) and specificity (88.78% vs 84.82%) [34]. This performance profile is particularly relevant for parasite detection, where similar genomic challenges exist.

Microbiome Characterization: In respiratory microbiome studies, Illumina and Nanopore technologies show complementary profiles for 16S rRNA sequencing. Illumina captures greater species richness, while Nanopore provides improved resolution for dominant bacterial species with full-length 16S rRNA reads enabling species-level identification [12]. These differences in taxonomic resolution directly impact parasite speciation and strain discrimination in complex samples.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Hybrid Sequencing and Analysis Workflow

The DNAscope Hybrid pipeline implements a sophisticated methodology for combining short and long-read data [98]. The protocol involves:

• Sample Preparation: Extract high-molecular-weight DNA from the target sample.
• Parallel Sequencing: Sequence the same sample using both short-read (Illumina) and long-read (PacBio) platforms.
• Data Integration: Process short-read and long-read data together through the DNAscope Hybrid pipeline, which performs integrated alignment and variant calling.
• Variant Calling: Identify SNPs, indels, and structural variants using the combined data signatures.
• Validation: Benchmark performance using reference standards like Genome in a Bottle benchmarks.

This approach reduces variant calling errors by at least 50% compared to standalone short- or long-read pipelines, particularly at lower long-read coverages (5x-10x) [98].

Targeted NGS for Pathogen Detection

The protocol for targeted NGS in pathogen detection involves [13] [34]:

• Sample Collection: Obtain bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, cerebrospinal fluid, or other relevant samples.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Use kits such as the MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit for simultaneous DNA and RNA extraction.
• Library Preparation:
  • For amplification-based tNGS: Use pathogen-specific primers for ultra-multiplex PCR amplification (198 microorganism-specific primers in one study).
  • For capture-based tNGS: Use biotinylated probes to enrich target pathogen sequences.
• Sequencing: Perform on Illumina platforms (NextSeq or MiniSeq) with appropriate read lengths.
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Quality control and adapter trimming
  • Alignment to curated pathogen databases
  • Species identification and abundance quantification

This methodology enables detection of antimicrobial resistance genes and virulence factors while maintaining high sensitivity and specificity [13].

Metagenomic NGS for Complex Samples

For comprehensive pathogen detection in complex samples, the mNGS protocol includes [13] [101]:

• Sample Processing: Liquefy samples using dithiothreitol for viscous specimens.
• DNA Extraction: Use pathogen DNA kits (e.g., QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit) with human DNA depletion using Benzonase.
• RNA Processing: Extract RNA, remove ribosomal RNA, and perform reverse transcription.
• Library Construction: Fragment DNA, add adapters, and quantify library concentration using qPCR.
• Sequencing: Execute on Illumina platforms (typically 75-bp single-end reads, generating ~20 million reads per sample).
• Bioinformatic Pipeline:
  • Remove human sequences by mapping to hg38
  • Align microbial reads to comprehensive pathogen databases
  • Apply thresholds for positive detection (RPM ratio ≥10 for pathogens with background in negative controls)

This unbiased approach is particularly valuable for detecting novel, rare, and atypical pathogens in parasite research [101].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Variant Calling Studies

Reagent/Kit	Manufacturer	Primary Function	Application Context
QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit	Qiagen	Pathogen DNA extraction with human DNA depletion	mNGS library preparation for complex samples [13]
MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit	Magen	Simultaneous DNA and RNA extraction from pathogens	tNGS for comprehensive pathogen detection [13]
NexteraXT Library Prep Kit	Illumina	Library preparation for short-read sequencing	Virome studies and microbial community analysis [99]
SQK-LSK109 Ligation Kit	Oxford Nanopore	Library preparation for Nanopore sequencing	Long-read viromics and hybrid assembly [99]
Respiratory Pathogen Detection Kit	KingCreate	Targeted amplification of respiratory pathogens	Amplification-based tNGS for specific pathogen panels [13]
Sputum DNA Isolation Kit	Norgen Biotek	DNA extraction from respiratory samples	16S rRNA microbiome studies [12]
TIANamp Micro DNA Kit	TIANGEN BIOTECH	DNA extraction for metagenomic sequencing	Clinical mNGS applications [34]
GenomiPhi V3 DNA Amplification Kit	GE Healthcare	Whole genome amplification for low-input samples	Virome studies requiring DNA amplification [99]

The landscape of variant calling in challenging genomic regions is rapidly evolving, with each sequencing technology offering distinct advantages. Short-read technologies remain the cost-effective choice for standard variant detection in accessible genomic regions, while long-read technologies provide essential capabilities for resolving complex structural variations and repetitive elements. Targeted approaches offer a balanced solution for specific applications with budget constraints, and hybrid methods represent the cutting edge for comprehensive variant detection.

For parasite researchers, the selection of sequencing technology should be guided by specific research questions, genomic context, and resource constraints. Studies requiring high sensitivity for diverse or unknown pathogens may benefit from mNGS approaches, while research focused on specific parasite genes or drug resistance markers may achieve better performance with tNGS. The emergence of hybrid sequencing and analysis methods presents particularly promising opportunities for resolving complex parasitic genomes and understanding host-parasite interactions.

As sequencing technologies continue to advance, with both PacBio and Nanopore achieving higher accuracy and throughput, the capabilities for variant calling in challenging regions will further improve. Combined with enhanced bioinformatic tools like the DNAscope Hybrid pipeline, these advances promise to illuminate previously inaccessible regions of parasitic genomes, accelerating discovery in basic parasitology and clinical diagnostics.

This guide provides an objective comparison of the Illumina NovaSeq X and Ultima Genomics UG 100, two leading high-throughput sequencing platforms, with a specific focus on their performance for comprehensive genomic coverage. For researchers in parasite detection and drug development, understanding the nuances in data accuracy and genomic completeness is critical for discovery.

The Illumina NovaSeq X Series and Ultima Genomics UG 100 represent two different approaches to scaling next-generation sequencing (NGS). The NovaSeq X builds upon Illumina's established patterned flow cell and Sequencing by Synthesis (SBS) chemistry, now enhanced with XLEAP-SBS chemistry for improved speed and robustness [102] [103]. The platform is integrated with the DRAGEN secondary analysis platform for onboard, rapid data processing [103]. In contrast, the UG 100 employs a disruptive, flow-based SBS chemistry that operates on a large, open 200mm silicon wafer instead of a conventional flow cell [104]. This design, adapted from the semiconductor industry, is a key driver of its cost reduction [104].

The table below summarizes the core specifications of both platforms.

Table 1: Key Platform Specifications

Specification	Illumina NovaSeq X Plus	Ultima Genomics UG 100 (with Solaris)
Maximum Output per Run	Up to 16 Tb (dual flow cell) [103]	10-12 billion reads per wafer [105]
Maximum Reads per Run	52 billion single reads (104 billion paired-end) [103]	10-12 billion reads [105]
Read Lengths	Up to 2x150 bp [102]	Information missing
Reported Run Time	~17-48 hours (varies by configuration) [102]	Less than 14 hours (can be ~20 hours for longer reads) [104]
Typical Quality Scores (Q30)	≥ 85% (for 2x100 bp and 2x150 bp) [102]	Accuracy assessed via F1 scores (SNP: 99.8%, INDEL: 99.4%) [104]
Reported Cost per Genome	Aims for a ~$200 genome [104]	~$80 genome (consumables) [106] [105]

Performance Analysis: Accuracy and Genomic Coverage

A critical differentiator between these platforms lies in data analysis and genomic coverage. Illumina typically measures performance against the full NIST v4.2.1 benchmark for the GIAB HG002 sample [107]. Ultima Genomics, however, uses a defined subset of this benchmark called the "high-confidence region" (HCR), which excludes certain challenging genomic areas [107].

Comparative Accuracy and Variant Calling

An internal analysis by Illumina compared the variant calling performance of both platforms against the full NIST benchmark, with the following key findings [107]:

• The NovaSeq X Series produced 6 times fewer single-nucleotide variant (SNV) errors and 22 times fewer insertion and deletion (indel) errors than the UG 100.
• The UG 100's HCR excludes approximately 450,000 variants (4.2% of the NIST benchmark variants), which can lead to up to 8% fewer SNV and 49% fewer indel calls compared to the NovaSeq X [107].
• The UG 100 HCR also excludes 4.2% of the genome, including 2.3% of the exome and 1.0% of ClinVar variants, a key database for human genetic variants [107].

Coverage in Challenging Genomic Regions

The performance gap is particularly pronounced in biologically complex regions, which are often critical for disease research.

• GC-Rich Regions: Coverage with the UG 100 platform was shown to drop significantly in mid-to-high GC-rich regions compared to the NovaSeq X Series [107].
• Homopolymers: Indel accuracy on the UG 100 decreased notably in homopolymers longer than 10 base pairs. The UG 100 HCR explicitly excludes homopolymer regions longer than 12 base pairs [107].
• Disease-Associated Genes: The regions excluded by the UG 100 HCR contain pathogenic variants in 793 genes [107]. Specific examples include:
  • B3GALT6: A gene linked to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which shows loss of coverage on the UG 100 due to its GC-rich sequence [107].
  • FMR1: A gene crucial for brain development, mutations in which cause fragile X syndrome [107].
  • BRCA1: A tumor suppressor gene where 1.2% of pathogenic variants fall outside the UG 100 HCR, and the UG 100 showed more indel calling errors [107].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship and key differentiators in how the two platforms approach genomic analysis and coverage.

Experimental Protocols for Performance Validation

For scientists to critically evaluate the comparative data, understanding the underlying experimental methodology is essential. The following workflow is synthesized from the Illumina comparative analysis [107].

Sample Preparation and Sequencing

• Reference Sample: The Genome in a Bottle (GIAB) reference genome (HG002) is used as a standardized sample [107].
• Library Preparation & Sequencing:
  • Illumina NovaSeq X: Libraries are sequenced on the NovaSeq X Plus system using a NovaSeq X Series 10B reagent kit. Data is downsampled to 35x coverage depth (including duplicates) [107].
  • Ultima Genomics UG 100: A publicly available WGS dataset generated on the UG 100 at 40x coverage depth (excluding duplicates) is sourced for analysis [107].

Data Analysis and Benchmarking

• Secondary Analysis:
  • Illumina data is processed using DRAGEN v4.3 secondary analysis [107].
  • Ultima data is analyzed using DeepVariant software as provided by Ultima Genomics [107].
• Variant Calling Assessment:
  • Variant calls (SNVs, indels) from both platforms are compared against the NIST v4.2.1 benchmark [107].
  • A critical step is defining the evaluation region. The analysis is performed in two ways:
    • Against the full NIST v4.2.1 benchmark regions.
    • Against the Ultima "high-confidence region" (HCR), which is a subset of the full benchmark [107].
• Performance Metrics:
  • Error Rates: Calculated as the sum of false positives (variants called not in the benchmark) and false negatives (benchmark variants not called) [107].
  • Coverage Analysis: Genome coverage is assessed, particularly in challenging regions like high-GC areas and long homopolymers, to identify any systematic gaps [107].

The Scientist's Toolkit for Sequencing-Based Parasite Detection

For research applications like parasite genome detection, the sequencing platform is one component of a larger workflow. The following table details key reagents and tools used in mNGS-based pathogen identification, as outlined in the development of the Parasite Genome Identification Platform (PGIP) [20].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Parasite mNGS

Item	Function in the Workflow	Application Context
Library Prep Kits	Prepares DNA or RNA samples for sequencing by adding platform-specific adapters.	Required for all NGS platforms. Compatibility with both Illumina and Ultima library prep providers is noted [104] [105].
Trimmomatic	Removes sequencing adapters and filters out low-quality reads during data pre-processing [20].	Critical bioinformatics tool for ensuring data quality prior to analysis, applicable to data from any platform.
Bowtie2	Aligns sequencing reads to a host reference genome (e.g., human GRCh38) to deplete host DNA [20].	Enriches for pathogen sequences in clinical samples, improving detection sensitivity.
Kraken2	A k-mer-based system for the rapid taxonomic classification of sequencing reads against a custom database [20].	Enables initial, fast identification of parasite species from complex metagenomic samples.
MEGAHIT	Assembles short sequencing reads into longer contiguous sequences (contigs) [20].	Useful for detecting novel pathogens or characterizing genomes without a close reference.
MetaBAT	Bins assembled contigs into metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) based on sequence composition and abundance [20].	Helps reconstruct individual genomes from a mixed microbial community.
Curated Parasite Database	A high-quality, non-redundant reference database of parasite genomes essential for accurate identification [20].	The accuracy of tools like Kraken2 is entirely dependent on the quality and completeness of this database.

The choice between the Illumina NovaSeq X and the Ultima Genomics UG 100 hinges on the specific priorities of the research project.

• For applications where maximizing variant discovery and ensuring comprehensive coverage of challenging genomic regions is paramount—such in the detection of rare pathogens, characterization of complex structural variations, or clinical diagnostics—the Illumina NovaSeq X demonstrates a clear advantage, supported by higher reported accuracy across the entire genome [107].
• For projects where throughput and minimizing cost are the primary drivers, such as extremely large-scale population studies or model organism screening where the highest possible accuracy in every genomic region is less critical, the Ultima Genomics UG 100 presents a compelling, cost-effective alternative [104] [106].

For parasite research, where the goal is often to detect diverse and novel species from complex samples, the platform capable of providing the most uniform and comprehensive coverage will reduce the risk of false negatives and enable more confident discoveries.

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized parasite genomics, yet the choice between long-read and short-read platforms significantly impacts the resolution of complex, repetitive genomic regions. This guide provides an objective comparison of these technologies, focusing on their performance in parasite genome assembly, variant calling, and applications in epidemiological surveillance. While short-read sequencing (e.g., Illumina) offers high base-level accuracy at a lower cost, long-read sequencing (e.g., Oxford Nanopore, PacBio) generates reads spanning thousands to millions of bases, providing unparalleled ability to resolve repetitive elements and structural variations. Experimental data demonstrate that long-read technologies produce more complete genome assemblies for parasites like Trypanosoma cruzi and enable cost-effective, field-deployable surveillance for Plasmodium falciparum.

Fundamental Technical Differences

Short-Read Sequencing (Illumina) employs sequencing-by-synthesis of DNA fragments typically 50-300 base pairs (bp) in length. This technology uses fluorescently labeled nucleotides and requires DNA amplification, which can introduce bias and loses information about base modifications [17] [108]. Its high throughput and lower per-base cost make it suitable for applications requiring high sequencing depth.

Long-Read Sequencing encompasses two primary technologies:

• Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) detects nucleotide sequences by measuring changes in electrical current as DNA/RNA strands pass through protein nanopores. This approach sequences native DNA without amplification, preserves base modifications, and can generate reads from 1 kb to over 4 Mb [108].
• PacBio HiFi Sequencing uses circular consensus sequencing where the same DNA molecule is sequenced multiple times to achieve high accuracy (exceeding 99.9%) with read lengths of 500 bp to 20 kb [17].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Table 1: Technical Specifications of Major Sequencing Platforms

Parameter	Illumina Short-Reads	PacBio HiFi	Oxford Nanopore
Read Length	50-300 bp [108]	500 bp - 20 kb [17]	20 bp - >4 Mb [17] [108]
Raw Read Accuracy	>99.9% (Q30) [17]	>99.9% (Q30) [17]	~99% (Q20) [17]
Typical Run Time	Varies by platform	24 hours [17]	72 hours [17]
DNA Input	Low, amplified	Higher, native DNA	Flexible, native DNA
Detection of Base Modifications	Not available with standard protocols	5mC, 6mA without bisulfite treatment [17]	5mC, 5hmC, 6mA with additional analysis [17]
Variant Detection	SNVs, small indels	SNVs, indels, structural variants [17]	SNVs, structural variants (indel calling challenging) [17]
Portability	Benchtop systems available	Laboratory systems	Portable options (MinION) [17] [109]

Performance in Parasite Genomics: Experimental Evidence

Genome Assembly Completeness

Parasite genomes present particular challenges due to their repetitive content, high AT-composition, and complex life cycles. Direct comparisons demonstrate significant advantages for long-read technologies in assembly metrics:

Table 2: Assembly Performance for Trypanosoma cruzi Berenice Strain [110]

Assembly Metric	Illumina Short-Read Only	Hybrid (Illumina + Nanopore)
Number of Scaffolds	~47,000	~900 (51-fold decrease)
Maximum Scaffold Length	~26 kb	~1 Mb
Median Scaffold Size	Baseline	46-fold improvement
Assembly Size	Baseline	~16 Mb increase
Longest Gap Region	6,156 bp	1,787 bp

For Trypanosoma cruzi, the causative agent of Chagas disease, approximately half of its genome consists of repetitive sequences that challenge short-read assembly [110]. The hybrid approach combining Illumina short reads and Nanopore long reads demonstrated a 51-fold decrease in scaffold number and a 46-fold improvement in median scaffold size, dramatically improving assembly continuity and revealing approximately 16 Mb of additional sequence [110].

A 2025 comparison of microbial pathogen epidemiology further confirmed that "assemblies made from long reads were more complete than those made from short-read data and contained few sequence errors" [111].

Variant Calling Accuracy

Variant calling pipelines differ significantly in their ability to accurately identify polymorphisms from long-read data. Research on phytopathogenic bacteria (as a proxy for parasite genomics) revealed that:

• Short-read variant calling pipelines achieved higher accuracy when long reads were computationally fragmented to mimic short reads [111]
• Long-read specific pipelines showed more variability in variant calling performance [111]
• Combined analysis of short- and long-read datasets with the same pipelines produced accurate genotyping results [111]

This suggests that while long reads improve assembly continuity, specialized approaches may be needed for optimal variant detection from these data types.

Experimental Protocols for Parasite Genomic Applications

Targeted Nanopore Sequencing forPlasmodium falciparum

The NOMADS (NMEC-Oxford Malaria Amplicon Drug-resistance Sequencing) protocol exemplifies a cost-effective approach for parasite genomic surveillance in resource-limited settings [109]:

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Sample Collection and DNA Extraction

  • Input: Dried blood spots (DBS), which are non-invasive and field-stable
  • DNA extraction using commercial kits (e.g., TIANamp Micro DNA Isolation Kit)
  • DNA quantity assessment via fluorometry [109]

• Selective Whole Genome Amplification (sWGA)

  • Uses parasite-specific primers to enrich Plasmodium DNA
  • Reduced-volume reactions to minimize costs (saving ~USD $4/sample)
  • Maintains sufficient yield for subsequent multiplex PCR [109]

• Multiplex PCR with Custom Panels

  • NOMADS8 Panel: Eight targets covering key drug-resistance genes (e.g., kelch13, dhfr, dhps)
  • NOMADS16 Panel: Expanded targets including vaccine antigens (csp) and diagnostic targets (hrp2/3)
  • Amplicon size: 3-4 kbp to leverage long-read capabilities
  • Uses multiply software for optimized primer design considering:
    • Off-target binding potential
    • Primer-dimer formation
    • Population polymorphisms in binding sites [109]

• Library Preparation and Sequencing

  • Barcoding and pooling using one-pot protocol
  • Sequencing on MinION flow cells (R9.4.1 or R10.4.1)
  • Real-time basecalling and analysis [109]

Performance Metrics:

• Cost: Approximately USD $25 per sample
• Coverage: >100x for most targets
• Accuracy: >99% SNP calling concordance within coding sequences
• Enables detection of deletions causing diagnostic test failure [109]

Hybrid Assembly for Complex Parasite Genomes

The hybrid assembly approach for Trypanosoma cruzi demonstrates how combining technologies overcomes limitations of either method alone:

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Methodology:

• Library Preparation and Sequencing

  • Illumina Libraries: Prepared with Nextera XT Kit, sequenced on MiSeq (150bp paired-end)
  • Nanopore Libraries: Prepared with Rapid Sequencing Kit, sequenced on MinION (1D reads)
  • Typical yield: 12-15 million Illumina reads; 250,000+ Nanopore reads [110]

• Assembly Process

  • Uses MaSuRCA assembler with default parameters
  • Separate assemblies: Illumina-only versus hybrid (Illumina + Nanopore)
  • Assembly evaluation using BUSCO for completeness assessment [110]

• Annotation and Analysis

  • Protein coding genes annotated using TriTrypDB and BLAST+
  • Non-coding RNAs identified with tRNAscan-SE and Infernal
  • Repetitive elements annotated with Tandem Repeat Finder [110]

Research Reagent Solutions for Parasite Genomics

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Parasite Genomics

Reagent/Platform	Function	Application Example
Oxford Nanopore MinION	Portable sequencing device enabling field deployment	Plasmodium falciparum surveillance in endemic regions [109]
NOMADS Panels	Custom multiplex PCR panels for targeted sequencing	Cost-effective drug resistance monitoring in malaria [109]
Paragon Genomics CleanPlex	Targeted NGS panels for parasite genomes	Community-driven malaria research panel [112]
Multiply Software	Open-source tool for multiplex PCR design	Designing custom amplicon panels for diverse parasite targets [109]
Selective WGA Kits	Whole genome amplification with parasite-specific primers	Enriching parasite DNA from host-contaminated samples [109]
Dried Blood Spot Cards	Non-invasive sample collection and storage	Field-based sample collection for epidemiological studies [109]

Application-Specific Recommendations

Large-Scale Epidemiological Surveillance

For tracking drug resistance mutations or diagnostic escape variants across large sample sets:

• Targeted Nanopore Sequencing provides the optimal balance of cost ($25/sample), portability, and actionable data for public health response [109]
• Panel-based approaches (e.g., CleanPlex, NOMADS) focus resources on clinically relevant genomic regions
• Dried blood spot input facilitates decentralized sample collection [109]

Discovery Research and Novel Pathogen Characterization

For initial genome characterization or investigating complex genomic regions:

• Hybrid Sequencing combines short-read accuracy with long-read continuity for optimal assembly [110]
• PacBio HiFi provides high accuracy for variant discovery in repetitive regions [17]
• Ultra-long Nanopore reads resolve structural variations and complex repeats [108]

Diagnostic Development and Validation

For identifying genetic markers of resistance or virulence:

• Targeted NGS (tNGS) demonstrates similar sensitivity to metagenomic NGS (mNGS) but with faster turnaround (12h vs. 24h) and lower cost ($150 vs. $500) [113]
• Multiplexed amplicon sequencing enables high-throughput screening of known resistance loci [109]

The choice between long-read and short-read sequencing technologies for parasite genomics depends on research objectives, resources, and sample characteristics. Short-read technologies remain valuable for variant calling accuracy and high-throughput applications where cost efficiency is paramount. Long-read technologies excel at resolving complex genomic structures, detecting structural variations, and enabling field-based surveillance. The emerging paradigm of targeted long-read sequencing combines the advantages of both approaches, providing a cost-effective solution for monitoring drug resistance and transmission dynamics in endemic settings. As both technologies continue to evolve, their complementary strengths will further enhance our ability to understand and combat parasitic diseases through genomic surveillance.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized parasitology, offering unparalleled insights into detection, genotyping, and epidemiological tracking. Selecting the appropriate sequencing platform is a critical decision that directly impacts the success and scope of research and clinical applications. This guide provides an objective comparison of modern NGS platforms, supported by experimental data and tailored for parasite detection research.

Next-generation sequencing technologies are broadly categorized by their operational approach. Second-generation sequencing, or short-read sequencing (exemplified by Illumina), is characterized by high accuracy and massive parallelization, where DNA is clonally amplified and sequenced by synthesis [47]. In contrast, third-generation sequencing, or long-read sequencing (including Oxford Nanopore Technologies [ONT] and PacBio), sequences single DNA molecules in real-time, producing reads that are thousands to tens of thousands of bases long, which is particularly advantageous for resolving complex genomic regions [47] [114].

The fundamental NGS workflow consists of several universal steps, from sample preparation to data analysis, though the specifics vary by platform [47].

Comparative Performance of NGS Platforms

The choice of platform involves trade-offs between read length, accuracy, throughput, cost, and portability. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of major sequencing platforms used in parasitology research.

Platform (Technology)	Max Read Length	Error Profile	Run Time	Portability	Best Use in Parasitology
Illumina (SBS) [47] [114]	Short-read (75-300 bp) [115]	Low error rate (<1%); substitution errors [115] [114]	Hours to days [116]	Low (benchtop instruments)	Targeted NGS, whole-genome sequencing, RNA-Seq [1] [116]
Oxford Nanopore (Nanopore) [47]	Long-read (5.4 kb - 10 kb+) [115] [114]	High error rate (10-40%); indel errors [115] [114]	Hours to days (MinION) [117]	High (USB-sized MinION) [117] [114]	Metabarcoding, field surveillance, whole-genome sequencing [1] [117]
PacBio (SMRT) [47] [114]	Long-read (~15 kb) [115] [114]	Moderate error rate (5-10%); random errors [115] [114]	Hours to days [116]	Low	High-quality genome assembly, variant detection [1]

Supporting Experimental Data in Parasite Research

Independent studies consistently highlight the performance trade-offs between these platforms. A comparative study of the ONT MinION and PacBio Sequel platforms for assembling a yeast genome found that ONT with R7.3 flow cells generated more continuous assemblies, despite a known issue with homopolymer-associated errors [114].

In clinical parasitology, a study on Blastocystis sp. detection demonstrated that Illumina-based NGS was largely in agreement with Sanger sequencing but showed higher sensitivity for detecting mixed subtype infections within a single host [118]. This makes it a powerful tool for understanding complex parasite populations.

For field applications, a long-read metabarcoding platform was developed for filarial worm detection using the portable ONT MinION [117]. The assay successfully identified parasites from diverse genera including Brugia, Dirofilaria, and Wuchereria. When benchmarked against conventional PCR and microscopy, the ONT-based method identified over 15% more mono- and coinfections, showcasing the advantage of long-read deep-sequencing for comprehensive pathogen detection [117].

Decision Matrix for Research and Clinical Applications

Selecting the optimal platform depends heavily on the specific research or clinical question. The following decision matrix guides this critical choice.

Application-Oriented Platform Selection

• Large-Scale Epidemiological Surveillance: For processing hundreds of samples to identify and subtype common parasites like Blastocystis sp. or Entamoeba histolytica, Illumina is often optimal due to its high throughput and low per-sample cost for multiplexed runs [118] [1].
• Field Surveillance and Outbreak Investigation: The portability of the ONT MinION is unmatched. Its ability to conduct real-time sequencing in resource-limited settings makes it ideal for tracking parasitic outbreaks (e.g., filariasis, schistosomiasis) and for vector identification directly in the field [1] [117].
• De Novo Genome Assembly and Structural Variation Analysis: For resolving complex, repetitive parasite genomes or studying large-scale genomic rearrangements, long-read technologies are essential. While PacBio offers high consensus accuracy, ONT provides a competitive alternative, especially with newer flow cells and base-calling algorithms [1] [114].
• Detection of Mixed and Co-infections: Deep-sequencing approaches on both Illumina and ONT platforms outperform conventional methods in identifying polyparasitism. NGS can delineate the full spectrum of parasites in a sample without prior knowledge, which is crucial for accurate diagnosis and understanding host-parasite dynamics [118] [117].
• Targeted Detection and Resistance Profiling: When the target is known (e.g., specific zoonotic filarioids or drug-resistance markers in Plasmodium), targeted NGS on the Illumina platform provides a highly sensitive and multiplexable solution. Molecular Inversion Probes (MIPs) can be used with both Illumina and ONT for highly specific targeted sequencing [18] [1].

Experimental Protocols: A Closer Look at Key Studies

Protocol 1: Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) for Pathogen Detection in Preservation Fluids

A 2025 study evaluated mNGS for detecting donor-derived infections in kidney transplantation, a methodology directly applicable to detecting parasitic pathogens in clinical fluids [5].

• Sample Collection: Organ preservation fluids and recipient wound drainage fluids were collected.
• DNA Extraction: Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was extracted from supernatant after centrifugation to remove human cells, using the QIAamp DNA Micro Kit.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Metagenomic libraries were constructed and sequenced on an Illumina NextSeq 550 platform.
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Raw reads were quality-trimmed and filtered.
  • Host reads were removed by alignment to the human reference genome (GRCh38).
  • Remaining reads were classified using taxonomic databases.
• Key Finding: mNGS demonstrated a significantly higher positive detection rate (47.5% in preservation fluid) compared to conventional culture (24.8%), and was capable of detecting atypical pathogens that cultures missed [5].

Protocol 2: Long-Read Metabarcoding for Filarial Worm Detection

A 2024 study developed a metabarcoding assay for filarial worms using the ONT MinION, ideal for field deployment [117].

• Sample and DNA: DNA was extracted from canine blood or from filarial worms/vectors using DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kits.
• PCR Amplification: A two-step PCR was performed. The first PCR used pan-filarial primers (Fil_COIint_ONT_F and Fil_COIint_ONT_R) targeting an ~650 bp region of the cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene.
• Library Preparation: The PCR Barcoding Expansion Kit (EXP-PBC096) was used with the Ligation Sequencing Kit (SQK-LSK110). Barcoded samples were pooled.
• Sequencing: The library was loaded onto an ONT MinION Mk1B sequencer with a R9.4.1 flow cell.
• Data Analysis: Basecalling was performed in real-time. Demultiplexed reads were filtered by quality and length, then classified against a curated database of filarial COI sequences.
• Key Finding: The assay identified more mono- and coinfections than traditional microscopy (modified Knott's test) and conventional PCR, proving the power of long-read deep-sequencing for complex parasite communities [117].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful NGS experiments rely on high-quality reagents and kits. The following table lists key solutions used in the featured studies.

Research Reagent / Kit	Function / Application	Specific Example from Literature
QIAamp DNA Micro Kit (Qiagen)	Extraction of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) or genomic DNA from small volume/ low biomass samples.	Used for extracting cfDNA from organ preservation and drainage fluids for mNGS [5].
DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen)	Isolation of total genomic DNA from a wide range of samples, including vertebrate blood and nematodes.	Standard DNA extraction method for canine blood and filarial worm samples [117].
LongAmp Hot Start Taq Master Mix (NEB)	PCR amplification of long targets with high fidelity, suitable for amplicon sequencing.	Used for the first-step PCR amplification of the filarial COI gene for ONT sequencing [117].
PCR Barcoding Expansion Kit (ONT)	Attaches unique barcode sequences to amplicons from different samples for multiplexed sequencing.	Enabled pooling of up to 96 canine DNA samples for cost-effective sequencing on the MinION [117].
Ligation Sequencing Kit (SQK-LSK110, ONT)	Prepares DNA libraries for sequencing on Nanopore flow cells by adding motor proteins and adapters.	Standard library preparation kit used for the filarial worm metabarcoding assay [117].
Molecular Inversion Probes	Enable highly multiplexed PCR for targeted sequencing, useful for panel-based pathogen detection.	A MIP panel correctly classified 31 bacterial pathogens from blood cultures on both Illumina and ONT [18].

No single NGS platform is universally superior for all parasitology applications. The decision matrix and experimental data presented here underscore that Illumina excels in high-throughput, accurate genotyping of known targets, while Oxford Nanopore provides unparalleled flexibility and portability for field deployment and discovering complex genomic regions. PacBio remains a strong contender for generating highly accurate reference genomes. As sequencing technology continues to evolve, leveraging these platforms' complementary strengths will be key to unraveling the complexities of parasitic diseases and advancing both public health and fundamental research.

Conclusion

The integration of NGS into parasitology represents a paradigm shift, enabling unprecedented sensitivity and scope in detecting and characterizing parasitic infections. This comparison underscores that no single platform is universally superior; the choice hinges on the specific application. Illumina systems often lead in high-throughput, cost-effective variant calling, while long-read technologies from Oxford Nanopore and PacBio excel in resolving complex genomic structures. Future directions point toward the seamless integration of multi-omics data, the application of AI for enhanced bioinformatic analysis, and the development of streamlined, automated workflows. As these technologies continue to evolve and become more accessible, they promise to transform outbreak investigations, drug discovery, and the implementation of precision medicine for parasitic diseases on a global scale.

References

• 1. Applications of the powerful next-generation sequencing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0882401025004711]
• 2. Optimization of 18 S rRNA metabarcoding for the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76304-1]
• 3. Next-generation sequencing technologies for helminth ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1471492224000953]
• 4. Next-generation sequencing: 2025 Revolution [https://lifebit.ai/blog/next-generation-sequencing/]
• 5. Comparison of pathogen detection performance between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12375685/]
• 6. Application of next generation sequencing for detection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405676620300251]
• 7. Comparative Meta-Analysis of Long-Read and Short-Read ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12566492/]
• 8. Long-Read Sequencing for the Rapid Response to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12081579/]
• 9. Unraveling the Genome Diversity of Leishmania Parasites ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/10/1590]
• 10. Comparative analysis of targeted next-generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09474-5]
• 11. Compatibility of whole-genome sequencing data from Illumina ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12046094/]
• 12. Comparative analysis of illumina and oxford nanopore ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18768-3]
• 13. Comparative diagnostic performance of metagenomic and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-11834-w]
• 14. Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034125002850]
• 15. PacBio vs Oxford Nanopore: Which Long-Read ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-pacbio-oxford-nanopore-comparison.html]
• 16. Comparative evaluation of sequencing platforms [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12365774/]
• 17. Comparing long-read sequencing technologies [https://www.pacb.com/blog/sequencing-101-comparing-long-read-sequencing-technologies/]
• 18. Comparison of Illumina and Oxford Nanopore Sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12179503/]
• 19. Comparative analysis of Illumina, PacBio, and nanopore ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiomes/articles/10.3389/frmbi.2025.1587712/full]
• 20. PGIP: a web server for the rapid taxonomic identification of ... [https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-025-07007-3]
• 21. Science unlocked: publication picks from October 2025 [https://nanoporetech.com/blog/science-unlocked-publication-picks-from-october-2025]
• 22. Application of next-generation sequencing in the detection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009898125003997]
• 23. Next Generation Sequence Testing: Essential 2025 Guide [https://lifebit.ai/blog/next-generation-sequence-testing/]
• 24. Clinical performance of metagenomic next-generation ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1631960/full]
• 25. Advancing Drug Resistance Detection [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-9038/2/3/14]
• 26. 2025 and Beyond: The Future of Genomic Data Analysis ... [https://blog.crownbio.com/2025-and-beyond-the-future-of-genomic-data-analysis-and-innovations-in-genomics-services]
• 27. Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: Current Trends ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10376292/]
• 28. PGIP: a web server for the rapid taxonomic identification of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12392538/]
• 29. Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing in Infectious ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12384723/]
• 30. Diagnostic value of metagenomic next-generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-23695-4]
• 31. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) versus tissue culture technique (TCT) in diagnosis of spinal infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06759-3]
• 32. Comparison of metagenomic next-generation sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7475574/]
• 33. Frontiers | Comparison and evaluation of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) and real-time PCR for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1694179/full]
• 34. Frontiers | Comparison of the diagnostic capabilities of tNGS and mNGS for pathogens causing lower respiratory tract infections: a prospective observational study [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1578939/full]
• 35. A tale of three next generation sequencing platforms ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-13-341]
• 36. Sequencing Platform Comparison Tool [https://emea.illumina.com/systems/sequencing-platforms/comparison-tool_msm_moved_msm_moved.html]
• 37. Comparison of the performance of MiSeq and NovaSeq in oral ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11028001/]
• 38. Metagenomics Approaches for the Detection and Surveillance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7830299/]
• 39. A tool kit for quantifying eukaryotic rRNA gene sequences ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4053730/]
• 40. Five Dimensions for Metabarcoding and Metagenomics ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/microbioseq/resource-dna-metabarcoding-metagenomics-comparison.html]
• 41. A comprehensive fungi-specific 18S rRNA gene sequence ... [https://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12866-018-1331-4]
• 42. eDNA metabarcoding vs metagenomics: an assessment of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2023.1116741/full]
• 43. a comparison of 18S-V9 and diat-rbcL metabarcoding vs ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43705-021-00070-8]
• 44. Navigating Past Oceans: Comparing Metabarcoding and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12225701/]
• 45. Whole Genome Sequencing Contributions and Challenges in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9027812/]
• 46. Rapid profiling of Plasmodium parasites from genome ... [https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-023-01247-7]
• 47. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): Platforms and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11001031/]
• 48. Comparative analysis of WGS and WES for genetic ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.07.24.25332056v1.full-text]
• 49. Comparative analysis of whole-genome sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-39108-2]
• 50. comparison of five whole genome sequencing (WGS) ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918587/]
• 51. Design and validation of a clinical whole genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12554564/]
• 52. Key Highlights and Insights from ASHG 2025 [https://3billion.io/blog/key-highlights-and-insights-from-ashg-2025]
• 53. Metagenomic detection of protozoan parasites on leafy ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1566579/full]
• 54. Advancing microbial risk assessment: perspectives from ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-025-00527-3]
• 55. Metagenomics Next Generation Sequencing (mNGS) [https://www.mdpi.com/2309-608X/8/11/1195]
• 56. Next-generation sequencing applications in food science [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12405390/]
• 57. Food Safety Surveillance with NGS [https://www.illumina.com/areas-of-interest/microbiology/public-health-surveillance/food-safety.html]
• 58. Advances in whole genome sequencing for foodborne ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12066639/]
• 59. 18S/28S rDNA metabarcoding identifies Cryptosporidium ... [https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-025-07043-z]
• 60. Optimization of 18 S rRNA metabarcoding for the ... [https://yonsei.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/optimization-of-18s-rrna-metabarcoding-for-the-simultaneous-diagn/]
• 61. A Primer on NGS Technologies and Their Specs (2025) [https://blog.latch.bio/p/a-primer-on-ngs-technologies-and]
• 62. The Best of NGS: Instrument Companies to Watch in 2025 [https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/the-best-of-ngs-instrument-companies-to-watch-in-2025/]
• 63. DNA Extraction from Protozoan Oocysts/Cysts in Feces for Diagnostic PCR - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4096637/]
• 64. Metagenomic detection of protozoan parasites on leafy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11949954/]
• 65. Application of a cost-effective DNA extraction protocol for screening transgenic and CRISPR-edited primary goat cells - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7500585/]
• 66. Robust, Open‐Source and Automation‐Friendly DNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12550468/]
• 67. Machine learning and explainable artificial intelligence for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0043135424010108]
• 68. Have you learned how to build a PCR-Free library? - Yeasen [https://www.yeasenbio.com/blogs/ngs/have-you-learned-how-to-build-a-pcr-free-library]
• 69. Comparison of PCR versus PCR-Free DNA Library ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8537689/]
• 70. Performance characterization of PCR-free whole genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8913097/]
• 71. PCR-Free Shallow Whole Genome Sequencing for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157821002646]
• 72. Which NGS DNA Library Prep Kit should you choose? [https://frontlinegenomics.com/which-ngs-dna-library-prep-kit-should-you-choose/]
• 73. Do you recommend PCR-free sequencing library preparations? [https://dnatech.ucdavis.edu/faqs/do-you-recommend-pcr-free-sequencing-library-preparations]
• 74. Preparation of DNA Sequencing Libraries for Illumina ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cloning/cloning-learning-center/invitrogen-school-of-molecular-biology/next-generation-sequencing/dna-sequencing-preparation-illumina.html]
• 75. Be aware of the allele-specific bias and compositional ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9438772/]
• 76. Reducing GC & PCR Bias in Whole-Genome Sequencing [https://www.revvity.com/blog/understanding-impact-gc-and-pcr-biases-whole-genome-sequencing]
• 77. Guide to Primer Design for PCR [https://www.benchling.com/primer-design-for-pcr]
• 78. Performance of broad-spectrum targeted next-generation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12139122/]
• 79. Understanding Ct Values in Real-Time PCR [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/understanding-ct-values/]
• 80. Proven tips for PCR primer design [https://www.neb.com/en-us/nebinspired-blog/proven-tips-for-pcr-primer-design?srsltid=AfmBOopzPEEqdD-dlJbbz62YEsdYAtGbtruoIJBiZblqXx-KaTCRsZbB]
• 81. DNA Sequencing: How to Choose the Right Technology [https://frontlinegenomics.com/dna-sequencing-how-to-choose-the-right-technology/]
• 82. What Is Cloud Automation? Everything You Need To Know [https://www.thundercattech.com/tcat_blog/cloud-automation/]
• 83. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) | Explore the technology [https://www.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation-sequencing.html]
• 84. Cloud-based bioinformatics workflow platform for large- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4203338/]
• 85. COSAP: Comparative Sequencing Analysis Platform [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-024-05756-z]
• 86. The Illumina platform versus the Beijing Genomics Institute ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2023.1164633/full]
• 87. Benchmarking of variant calling software for whole-exome ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-97047-7]
• 88. Artificial intelligence in variant calling: a review [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1574359/full]
• 89. Metagenome-assembled genomes enhance bacterial read ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12616088/]
• 90. Comparative analysis of two next-generation sequencing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213716522002089]
• 91. The Latest Developments in Sequencing Technologies [https://frontlinegenomics.com/the-latest-developments-in-sequencing-technologies/]
• 92. Cost-effectiveness of targeted next-generation sequencing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39810935/]
• 93. Cost-effectiveness analysis of metagenomic next- ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1710412/full]
• 94. Comparative assessment of the Sikun 2000 sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04170-6]
• 95. Next Generation Sequencing Market Size & Forecast, 2025 ... [https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/next-generation-sequencing-market-158]
• 96. Next Generation Sequencing Library Preparation Market to [https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/11/17/3189266/0/en/Next-Generation-Sequencing-Library-Preparation-Market-to-Reach-USD-4-83-Billion-by-2032-as-Demand-for-Precision-Genomics-Accelerates-SNS-Insider.html]
• 97. Challenges of Accuracy in Germline Clinical Sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9969524/]
• 98. A Novel and Accelerated Method for Integrated Alignment ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1691056/full]
• 99. The long and short of it: benchmarking viromics using ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10926689/]
• 100. Interrogating challenging genomic regions provides new ... [https://www.illumina.com/company/news-center/feature-articles/acmg-2025-interrogating-challenging-regions-of-the-genome.html]
• 101. Comparison of microbial culture, metagenomic next ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343261/]
• 102. NovaSeq X Series specifications [https://www.illumina.com/systems/sequencing-platforms/novaseq-x-plus/specifications.html]
• 103. NovaSeq X Series | Production scale, ultra-high-throughput ... [https://www.illumina.com/systems/sequencing-platforms/novaseq-x-plus.html]
• 104. The Ultima Genomics UG 100: Challenging Illumina's ... [https://blog.genohub.com/2025/03/13/the-ultima-genomics-ug-100-challenging-illuminas-dominance-in-high-throughput-sequencing/]
• 105. Ultima Genomics | High-Throughput, Cost-Effective DNA ... [https://www.ultimagenomics.com/]
• 106. High-Throughput and Cost-Effective Sequencing Takes ... [https://www.the-scientist.com/high-throughput-and-cost-effective-sequencing-takes-center-stage-73525]
• 107. Ultima Genomics UG 100 platform vs. Illumina NovaSeq X ... [https://www.illumina.com/science/genomics-research/articles/ultima-ug-100-vs-illumina-novaseq-x-wgs-data.html]
• 108. Short, long, or ultra-long: which read length is right for you? [https://nanoporetech.com/blog/short-long-or-ultra-long-which-read-length-is-right-for-you]
• 109. Flexible and cost-effective genomic surveillance of P. ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45688-z]
• 110. Nanopore Sequencing Significantly Improves Genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6640297/]
• 111. and long-read whole-genome sequencing for microbial ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41222256/]
• 112. CleanPlex NGS Panels for Malaria Research [https://www.paragongenomics.com/applications/infectious-disease-ngs/malaria-genomic-research/]
• 113. Comparison of targeted next-generation sequencing and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11395185/]
• 114. A practical comparison of the next-generation sequencing ... [https://www.life-science-alliance.org/content/6/4/e202201744]
• 115. A comparison of tools for the simulation of genomic next- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5224698/]
• 116. NGS, qPCR, or Sanger Sequencing: An Assay Selection ... [https://blog.genewiz.com/ngs-qpcr-or-sanger-sequencing-an-assay-selection-guide]
• 117. Development and validation of a long-read metabarcoding ... [https://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12866-023-03159-3]
• 118. Comparison of molecular diagnostic approaches for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9153396/]