Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS for Parasite Barcoding: A Comprehensive Guide for Researchers

Abstract

This article provides a definitive comparison of Sanger sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) for DNA barcoding of parasitic organisms. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational principles, methodological applications, and key considerations for selecting the appropriate technology. We detail practical workflows for barcoding protozoans like Toxoplasma gondii and Trypanosoma brucei, address common troubleshooting and optimization challenges such as primer bias and host DNA contamination, and present a data-driven validation of performance metrics including sensitivity, cost, and throughput. The goal is to equip scientists with the knowledge to effectively apply these sequencing tools to advance studies in parasite genetics, epidemiology, and drug discovery.

DNA Sequencing Fundamentals: From Sanger to NGS Barcoding

Sanger sequencing, developed by Frederick Sanger in 1977, is a foundational DNA sequencing method known as the "chain-termination method." It is renowned for its high accuracy (99.99%) and remains the gold standard for validating DNA sequences, including those generated by next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms [1] [2] [3]. In parasite barcoding research, this accuracy is crucial for confirming the identity of specific pathogens, though the higher throughput of NGS is often better suited for discovering diverse or mixed parasite communities [4] [5].

Core Principle: The Chain Termination Method

The fundamental principle of Sanger sequencing is the random incorporation of chain-terminating dideoxynucleotides (ddNTPs) during in vitro DNA replication. The process relies on the following key components [1] [2] [3]:

• Template DNA: The single-stranded DNA to be sequenced.
• Primer: A short oligonucleotide that binds to a known sequence adjacent to the target region.
• DNA Polymerase: The enzyme that synthesizes a new DNA strand.
• dNTPs: The four standard deoxynucleotide triphosphates (dATP, dGTP, dCTP, dTTP), which are the building blocks of DNA.
• ddNTPs: Dideoxynucleotide triphosphates (ddATP, ddGTP, ddCTP, ddTTP). These are chemically altered nucleotides that lack a 3'-hydroxyl group required for forming a phosphodiester bond with the next nucleotide [2] [3].

During the sequencing reaction, the DNA polymerase extends the primer by incorporating dNTPs that are complementary to the template strand. However, when a fluorescently labeled ddNTP is incorporated by chance, the absence of the 3'-OH group halts DNA strand elongation at that point. This results in a collection of DNA fragments of varying lengths, each terminating at a specific base type (A, T, G, or C) [1] [2].

These fragments are then separated by capillary electrophoresis based on their size. As each fragment passes a detector, the fluorescent label on the terminal ddNTP is excited by a laser. The resulting sequence of fluorescent signals is translated into a chromatogram, which displays the order of bases in the original DNA template [3].

Comparative Performance in Parasite Research

While Sanger sequencing provides high accuracy for single targets, NGS platforms offer superior throughput for detecting diverse parasite communities. The following table summarizes key differences in their application to parasite barcoding.

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Sequencing Principle	Chain termination with ddNTPs [1]	Parallel sequencing of millions of fragments [1]
Typical Read Length	500–1000 bp [2] [6]	Varies by platform; can be shorter [1]
Accuracy	~99.99% [1] [2]	High, but can be lower than Sanger; errors may be corrected statistically [1]
Cost per Sample	Lower for single genes [1]	More economical for high-throughput projects [1]
Throughput	Low; sequences one DNA fragment per reaction [1]	Very high; sequences millions of fragments simultaneously [1]
Ideal Use Case in Parasite Barcoding	Confirming identity of a specific parasite; validating NGS results [6] [5]	Detecting mixed-species infections; discovering novel parasites; comprehensive biodiversity studies [7] [8] [5]

Supporting Experimental Data

A 2022 comparative analysis of NGS for Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers demonstrated the utility of both methods. In this study, SNP calls from both Illumina MiSeq and Ion Torrent PGM NGS platforms were in complete agreement with conventional Sanger sequencing, validating NGS for molecular surveillance. However, NGS offered a significant advantage in throughput and cost, reducing the cost by 86% compared to Sanger sequencing when multiplexing 96 samples per run [4].

For detecting complex parasitic communities, NGS shows clear superiority. A 2025 study on gastrointestinal parasites in ruminants used 18S rDNA NGS and identified 192 operational taxonomic units (OTUs), including 10 phyla and 27 genera of parasites. This depth of analysis would be impractical with Sanger sequencing [7]. Similarly, metabarcoding approaches can "bypass the limitations of traditional Sanger sequencing by enabling insight into intra-species genetic diversity and the delineation of mixed species/subtype infection" [5].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Sanger Sequencing Workflow for Parasite Identification

The following protocol is typical for generating sequence data from a parasite gene for barcoding purposes [9] [6] [3].

• Step 1: DNA Extraction

  • Extract high-quality, high-molecular-weight genomic DNA from the sample (e.g., blood, feces, tissue). Methods such as phenol-chloroform extraction or commercial kits are used. The DNA must be intact and pure, with an OD260/OD280 ratio of 1.8–2.0 [9] [6].

• Step 2: Target Amplification by PCR

  • Design and optimize primers to amplify a specific genetic locus (e.g., 18S rRNA, cytochrome b) from the parasite.
  • Primer Design: Primers should be 18–25 bases long with a calculated annealing temperature (Tm). Avoid secondary structures and repetitive sequences [9] [6].
  • Perform PCR to amplify the target region. The amplicon should appear as a single, sharp band on an agarose gel.

• Step 3: PCR Product Purification

  • Purify the PCR product to remove excess primers, dNTPs, salts, and polymerase. This can be done using bead-based, column-based, or enzymatic clean-up kits. Purification is critical for a clean sequencing reaction [6].

• Step 4: Sanger Sequencing Reaction

  • The reaction mixture includes:
    • Purified PCR product: 1–10 ng/µL.
    • Sequencing primer: 3–10 pmol/µL.
    • DNA polymerase: 0.5–1.0 U per 10 µL reaction.
    • Buffer: Contains salts and cofactors.
    • dNTPs: Standard deoxynucleotides.
    • Fluorescently labeled ddNTPs: Chain-terminating nucleotides.
  • The reaction undergoes thermal cycling: denaturation (96°C for 1 min), annealing (50–60°C for 20 sec), and extension (60°C for 4 min) for 25–35 cycles [9] [3].

• Step 5: Post-Reaction Clean-Up

  • Remove unincorporated ddNTPs and salts from the sequencing reaction products to reduce background noise.

• Step 6: Capillary Electrophoresis

  • The cleaned-up fragments are injected into a capillary array filled with a polymer matrix. An electric field is applied, separating the fragments by size. A laser detects the fluorescent label of each terminal ddNTP as it passes the detector [2] [3].

• Step 7: Data Analysis

  • Software converts the fluorescent data into a chromatogram. The base sequence is determined, and the chromatogram is manually or automatically reviewed for quality. Low-quality bases at the ends are often trimmed [6].

Next-Generation Metabarcoding for Parasite Diversity

This protocol highlights key differences from the Sanger approach, particularly in the amplification and sequencing steps [7] [8] [5].

• Step 1: DNA Extraction

  • Similar to Sanger sequencing, high-quality DNA is extracted from complex samples like feces or blood.

• Step 2: Amplification of Barcode Region with Adapters

  • Design universal primers that target a conserved, variable region (e.g., V4-V9 of 18S rDNA) across a broad range of parasites.
  • Primers include adapter sequences that are compatible with the NGS platform (e.g., Illumina).
  • To overcome high levels of host DNA in samples like blood, blocking primers (e.g., C3-spacer modified oligos or Peptide Nucleic Acids) can be added. These bind specifically to host DNA and prevent its amplification, thereby enriching for parasite DNA [8].

• Step 3: Library Preparation and Sequencing

  • The PCR products (amplicons) are purified, quantified, and pooled together in equimolar ratios into a "library."
  • The library is loaded onto an NGS platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq, portable nanopore). The system performs massively parallel sequencing, generating hundreds of thousands to millions of sequence reads in a single run [7].

• Step 4: Bioinformatic Analysis

  • Raw sequence reads are demultiplexed and filtered for quality.
  • High-quality reads are clustered into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) based on sequence similarity.
  • These are classified taxonomically by comparison to reference databases to identify the parasites present [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent/Material	Function in the Experiment
Template DNA	The source of genetic material from the parasite or host sample. High purity and integrity are critical for success [9] [6].
Sequence-Specific Primers	Short DNA fragments that specifically bind to the target region, providing a starting point for DNA synthesis by polymerase [9] [6].
DNA Polymerase	Enzyme that catalyzes the template-directed synthesis of new DNA strands during PCR and the sequencing reaction [9].
dNTPs (dATP, dGTP, dCTP, dTTP)	The fundamental building blocks used by the DNA polymerase to extend the DNA chain [1] [2].
Fluorescently Labeled ddNTPs	Chain-terminating nucleotides that halt synthesis and provide a fluorescent signal to identify the terminal base. Key to the Sanger method [2] [3].
Blocking Primers (PNA/C3-spacer)	Used in NGS metabarcoding to inhibit the amplification of abundant host DNA, thereby enriching the sample for parasite DNA [8].
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Used in NGS metabarcoding to amplify a target gene from a wide range of eukaryotic parasites in a single reaction [7] [8] [5].
Capillary Electrophoresis System	The instrument that separates terminated DNA fragments by size and detects their fluorescent signals to generate the sequence data [2] [3].
C.I. Direct Red 243	C.I. Direct Red 243|Azo Dye for Textile Research
Ethyl 2-(2-cyanoanilino)acetate	Ethyl 2-(2-Cyanoanilino)acetate|87223-76-5

The field of genomic research has been transformed by the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), which enables the parallel sequencing of millions of DNA fragments. This technological revolution is particularly impactful in specialized areas such as parasite barcoding, where accurate species identification is crucial for diagnosis, treatment, and understanding transmission dynamics. For decades, Sanger sequencing served as the gold standard for genetic analysis. However, when comparing these methodologies for parasite barcoding, significant differences in capability, throughput, and application emerge. This guide provides an objective comparison of Sanger sequencing and NGS technologies, framed within parasite barcoding research, to help scientific professionals select the most appropriate method for their investigative needs.

Performance Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS

The table below summarizes the key characteristics of Sanger sequencing and NGS in the context of parasite barcoding, based on recent experimental studies.

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Core Principle	Chain-termination with capillary electrophoresis [10]	Massive parallel sequencing of library fragments [8] [11]
Multiplexing / Multi-Species Detection	Not suitable for identifying multiple species in a single sample [10]	Capable of detecting multiple species or co-infections in a single run [8] [10]
Typical Barcoding Read Structure	Single, continuous sequence read	Millions of short (Illumina) or long (Nanopore) reads [8] [12]
Sample Throughput	Low (one sample per run)	High (dozens to hundreds of samples multiplexed in one run) [13]
Sensitivity in Complex Samples	Can fail if host DNA overwhelms the sample or in mixed infections [10]	Can be combined with host DNA blocking primers to enrich for parasite DNA [8] [14]
Primary Barcoding Application	Identification of single parasites from pure samples or cultures	Comprehensive detection, species identification, and strain typing directly from clinical samples [8] [15]
Relative Cost and Speed	Lower cost per sample for small batches; faster turnaround for single samples	Higher startup cost, but lower cost per sample for high-throughput projects; rapid results with portable devices [15]

Experimental Insights and Protocols

Supporting data for the comparison table comes from direct experimental applications of both technologies in parasite research.

Case Study 1: Mosquito Surveillance

A 2024 study directly compared a multiplex PCR protocol with DNA barcoding via Sanger sequencing for identifying container-breeding Aedes mosquito species from ovitraps [10].

• Sanger Sequencing Protocol: DNA was extracted from eggs, and the mitochondrial COI gene was amplified by PCR. The resulting amplicons were then sequenced using the Sanger method [10].
• Results: The multiplex PCR identified species in 1990 out of 2271 samples, while Sanger sequencing was successful in only 1722 samples. Furthermore, the multiplex PCR (an NGS-like approach) detected mixtures of different species in 47 samples, a feat not achievable with the standard Sanger sequencing workflow used in the study [10].

Case Study 2: Blood Parasite Detection with Nanopore NGS

A 2025 study developed a targeted NGS approach for blood parasites using a portable nanopore sequencer, highlighting key advantages of modern NGS [8] [14].

• NGS Protocol:
  • Primer Design: Use of universal primers targeting the V4-V9 hypervariable regions of the 18S rDNA gene to achieve species-level resolution across a broad range of parasites [8] [14].
  • Host DNA Suppression: Incorporation of two blocking primers—a C3 spacer-modified oligo and a Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligo—to selectively inhibit the amplification of overwhelming host 18S rDNA, thereby enriching parasite DNA [8] [14].
  • Sequencing & Analysis: Library preparation and sequencing on a portable nanopore platform, with subsequent bioinformatic analysis for species identification [8].
• Results: The assay demonstrated high sensitivity, detecting Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, Plasmodium falciparum, and Babesia bovis in spiked human blood samples with concentrations as low as 1, 4, and 4 parasites per microliter, respectively. It also successfully revealed multiple Theileria species co-infections in field cattle blood samples [8].

Visualizing the NGS Barcoding Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the generalized workflow for amplicon-based NGS barcoding of parasites, integrating the key steps from the described protocols.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below details key reagents and materials used in NGS-based parasite barcoding, as featured in the cited experiments.

Reagent/Material	Function in Parasite Barcoding
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Amplify a conserved but variable genetic region across a wide range of eukaryotic parasites for species identification [8] [11].
Host-Blocking Primers (PNA/C3)	Sequence-specific oligos that bind to host DNA and inhibit its amplification during PCR, dramatically enriching the relative proportion of parasite DNA in the sample [8] [14].
Portable Nanopore Sequencer	A compact, low-cost sequencing device that enables real-time, long-read sequencing, making NGS feasible in resource-limited settings [8] [15].
Characterized Reference Materials	Well-defined control samples (e.g., metagenomic controls, WHO reagents) essential for validating and standardizing NGS methods across different laboratories [12].
Barcoded Index Adapters	Short, unique DNA sequences added to each sample's amplicons, allowing multiple samples to be pooled, sequenced in a single run, and computationally separated afterward [16] [13].

The revolution brought by NGS is evident in parasite barcoding research. While Sanger sequencing remains a reliable and cost-effective tool for identifying single organisms or validating results, NGS technologies offer unparalleled power for comprehensive pathogen detection, species differentiation, and understanding complex co-infections. The choice between them is not a matter of which is universally better, but which is more appropriate for the specific research question. For high-throughput surveillance, detecting unknown pathogens, or analyzing complex samples with mixed infections, NGS provides a depth of data that Sanger sequencing cannot match. As NGS protocols continue to be refined for simplicity, speed, and deployment in field settings, their role in advancing parasitology and global public health will only grow more prominent.

Defining DNA Barcoding and Its Critical Role in Parasitology

DNA barcoding has emerged as a revolutionary method for species identification in parasitology, providing unprecedented precision in distinguishing parasites and vectors. This method utilizes short, standardized gene regions to create genetic identifiers for species, overcoming limitations of traditional morphological identification. With the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS), DNA barcoding has transformed into a high-throughput tool capable of processing hundreds of specimens simultaneously. This review comprehensively compares Sanger sequencing and NGS platforms for parasite barcoding, examining their technical capabilities, applications, and experimental protocols to guide researchers in selecting appropriate methodologies for parasitological research and diagnostics.

DNA barcoding is a molecular method for species identification that uses a short, standardized DNA sequence from a specific gene or genes [17]. The fundamental premise is that by comparing an unknown DNA sequence against a reference library of authenticated sequences, organisms can be identified to species level with high accuracy—analogous to how a supermarket scanner identifies products using UPC barcodes [17]. This approach has proven particularly valuable in parasitology, where morphological identification can be challenging due to the small size of many parasites, their complex life cycles, and the existence of cryptic species complexes [18] [19].

In the context of parasites and vectors, DNA barcoding provides several critical advantages over traditional methods. It enables identification of immature life stages that lack diagnostic morphological characters, differentiation of morphologically identical cryptic species with divergent medical significance, and detection of parasites in mixed infections or from environmental samples [17] [18]. For example, the technique can distinguish between the pathogenic Entamoeba histolytica and its non-pathogenic relative Entamoeba dispar, which are morphological twins but have vastly different clinical implications [5]. The utility of DNA barcoding extends across diverse parasitological applications, including epidemiological studies, vector control programs, biodiversity assessments, and understanding complex host-parasite interactions [19].

DNA Barcoding Markers for Parasites

The selection of appropriate genetic markers is fundamental to successful DNA barcoding. Ideal barcode regions combine sufficient variability to distinguish between species with conserved flanking regions for universal primer binding [17]. Different marker genes are employed for various parasite groups, each with distinct advantages and limitations.

Table 1: Standard DNA Barcoding Markers for Parasites

Organism Group	Primary Barcode Marker	Alternative Markers	Key Applications
Animals & Helminths	Cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) [17]	Cytb, 12S, 16S [17]	Identification of nematodes, trematodes, cestodes, and arthropod vectors [19]
Protozoa	18S rRNA (SSU) [14] [11]	COI [20]	Detection of Plasmodium, Trypanosoma, Leishmania, Giardia, Cryptosporidium [5] [19]
Fungi & Microsporidia	Internal transcribed spacer (ITS) [17]	28S LSU rRNA [17]	Identification of microsporidian parasites [5]
Plants	rbcL, matK [17]	-	Identification of plant-derived parasites or hosts

For parasitic helminths and arthropod vectors, the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (COI) gene serves as the primary barcode region [17] [19]. This marker provides strong species-level discrimination across diverse animal taxa, with the "Folmer region" (approximately 658 base pairs) serving as the standard fragment for amplification and sequencing [17]. For protozoan parasites, the small subunit ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA) gene has emerged as the most commonly used barcode due to its appropriate evolutionary rate and comprehensive database coverage [14] [5] [11]. The 18S gene contains both conserved regions for primer design and variable regions (V4-V9) that provide species discrimination [14]. Research demonstrates that longer 18S fragments (e.g., V4-V9 spanning >1 kb) significantly improve species identification accuracy, especially when using error-prone sequencing platforms like Oxford Nanopore [14].

Sequencing Platforms for DNA Barcoding

Sanger Sequencing: The Traditional Approach

First-generation Sanger sequencing, based on the chain termination method using dideoxynucleoside triphosphates (ddNTPs), served as the foundational technology for DNA barcoding for nearly three decades [21] [22]. The method involves DNA synthesis from a single-stranded template with termination at specific points using fluorescently labeled ddNTPs, followed by fragment separation via capillary electrophoresis [21].

Sanger sequencing produces long, contiguous reads (500-1000 bp) with exceptionally high per-base accuracy (typically >99.999%) [21]. This makes it ideal for obtaining full-length barcode sequences from individual specimens with unambiguous results. However, the technology is fundamentally limited by low throughput, typically processing only individual samples or small batches per run [21] [20]. Additional limitations include the requirement for high-quality, high-quantity DNA template (100-500 ng) and difficulties resolving mixed infections or heteroplasmy due to its production of a single sequencing signal pattern [20].

Next-Generation Sequencing: High-Throughput Solutions

Next-generation sequencing platforms overcome many limitations of Sanger sequencing through massively parallel sequencing, enabling millions to billions of DNA fragments to be sequenced simultaneously [21] [22]. This high-throughput capability has revolutionized DNA barcoding applications in parasitology, particularly for large-scale biodiversity surveys, mixed infection detection, and environmental sampling [20] [5].

Table 2: Comparison of Sequencing Platforms for Parasite DNA Barcoding

Platform/Technology	Sequencing Principle	Max Read Length	Throughput per Run	Key Advantages for Parasitology	Primary Limitations
Sanger Sequencing [21]	Chain termination with ddNTPs	500-1000 bp	Low (individual samples)	Gold standard accuracy; long contiguous reads; simple data analysis	Low throughput; cannot resolve mixed templates; high cost per sample
Illumina [22]	Sequencing by synthesis with reversible dye-terminators	36-300 bp	High (millions to billions of reads)	Low cost per base; high accuracy; ideal for metabarcoding	Short reads limit phylogenetic utility; requires complex bioinformatics
454 Pyrosequencing [20] [22]	Detection of pyrophosphate release during nucleotide incorporation	400-1000 bp	Medium (~1 million reads)	Longer reads beneficial for complex barcodes; good for amplicon sequencing	Higher cost; production discontinued; homopolymer errors
Oxford Nanopore [14] [22] [23]	Electrical signal detection as DNA passes through protein nanopores	10,000-30,000 bp	Variable (portable to high-throughput)	Ultra-long reads; portable sequencing; real-time analysis; minimal infrastructure	Higher error rates (~5-15%); requires specialized analysis
PacBio SMRT [22] [23]	Real-time sequencing by synthesis in zero-mode waveguides	10,000-25,000 bp	Medium to High	Long reads; minimal GC bias; detects epigenetic modifications	Higher cost per sample; lower throughput than Illumina

NGS technologies enable two primary approaches for parasite barcoding: amplicon-based NGS (metabarcoding), where specific barcode regions are amplified and sequenced from single or mixed specimens, and metagenomic NGS, where total DNA from a sample is sequenced without targeted amplification [5]. Amplicon-based NGS is particularly valuable in parasitology as it allows for highly sensitive detection of multiple parasite species in a single sample and can reveal mixed infections and genetic diversity within species [5] [11].

Comparative Analysis: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS for Parasite Barcoding

Performance Metrics and Experimental Data

Direct comparisons between Sanger sequencing and NGS platforms reveal distinct performance characteristics that influence their suitability for different parasitological applications. A 2014 study directly compared Sanger sequencing with 454 pyrosequencing for DNA barcoding of 190 Lepidoptera specimens, demonstrating that NGS could recover full-length DNA barcodes for all but one specimen while simultaneously detecting additional genetic information such as Wolbachia infections, nontarget species, and heteroplasmic sequences [20]. The NGS approach provided an average of 143 sequence reads per specimen, enabling statistical confidence in sequence variants that would be ambiguous with Sanger sequencing [20].

A 2023 comparison of third-generation sequencing platforms for DNA barcoding applications found that Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) with R10 & Q20+ chemistry achieved the highest sample success rate, while ONT protocols required the shortest library preparation time [23]. The study also calculated economic break-even points, determining that third-generation platforms become more cost-effective than Sanger sequencing when studies require barcoding of more than 61 (Flongle), 183 (MinION), or 356 (PacBio) samples [23].

For diagnostic applications, a 2024 study optimized 18S rRNA metabarcoding for simultaneous detection of 11 intestinal parasite species (Clonorchis sinensis, Entamoeba histolytica, Dibothriocephalus latus, Trichuris trichiura, Fasciola hepatica, Necator americanus, Paragonimus westermani, Taenia saginata, Giardia intestinalis, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Enterobius vermicularis) using Illumina iSeq 100 platform [11]. The method successfully detected all species in a single run, though read counts varied substantially between species (0.9-17.2% of total reads), influenced by factors such as DNA secondary structure and PCR annealing temperature [11].

Technical Workflows: Traditional vs. Modern Approaches

The experimental workflows for Sanger sequencing versus NGS in parasite barcoding involve distinct procedures with implications for laboratory efficiency and data output.

DNA Barcoding Workflows: Sanger vs. NGS

The key distinction between these workflows lies in their parallelism. Sanger sequencing processes specimens individually throughout the entire workflow, while NGS incorporates sample multiplexing early in the process, enabling parallel processing of hundreds to thousands of specimens [21] [20]. The NGS approach also includes a more complex bioinformatic pipeline requiring specialized computational resources for demultiplexing, quality filtering, sequence alignment, and variant calling [21].

Research Reagent Solutions for DNA Barcoding Experiments

Successful implementation of DNA barcoding protocols requires specific reagents and materials tailored to different experimental approaches.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for DNA Barcoding Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Sanger Sequencing	NGS Applications
DNA Extraction Kits (e.g., Nucleospin Tissue Kit [20])	Isolation of high-quality DNA from diverse sample types	Required (high-quality template essential)	Required (quality less critical due to coverage depth)
Barcoding Primers (e.g., LepF1/LepR1 for COI [20])	Amplification of target barcode region	Standard primers without adapters	Modified with sequencing adapters and sample indices
PCR Enzymes (e.g., Platinum Taq Polymerase [20])	Amplification of barcode region	Standard formulation	High-fidelity enzymes to minimize amplification errors
Multiple Identifiers (MIDs) [20]	Unique oligonucleotide tags for sample multiplexing	Not required	Essential for pooling specimens in NGS runs
Blocking Primers (e.g., C3 spacer-modified oligos, PNA [14])	Suppress amplification of host DNA	Rarely used	Critical for host-derived samples (e.g., blood, tissues)
Library Prep Kits (Platform-specific)	Prepare amplicons for sequencing	Not required	Essential for all NGS platforms
Bioinformatic Tools (e.g., QIIME2, DADA2 [11])	Data processing and analysis	Basic alignment software	Sophisticicated pipeline required for demultiplexing, variant calling

The selection of blocking primers represents a particularly important advancement for parasite barcoding from host-derived samples. A 2025 study developed novel blocking primers including a C3 spacer-modified oligo competing with the universal reverse primer and a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) oligo that inhibits polymerase elongation, significantly improving detection of blood parasites by reducing host DNA amplification [14].

Applications in Parasitology

Species Identification and Discovery

DNA barcoding has proven invaluable for the identification and discovery of parasite species, particularly for morphologically cryptic complexes. Research indicates that DNA barcodes provide highly accurate species identification in 94-95% of cases when compared with author identifications based on morphology or other markers [19]. This accuracy is especially important for medically important parasites where misidentification can have significant clinical consequences.

By 2014, DNA barcode coverage had reached 43% of 1,403 medically important parasite and vector species, with even higher coverage (over 50%) for species of greater medical importance [19]. This growing database enables more comprehensive identification capabilities and supports the discovery of novel species through the identification of divergent barcode sequences that may represent previously unrecognized taxa [18] [19].

Mixed Infection and Genetic Diversity Analysis

NGS-based DNA barcoding enables detailed analysis of mixed parasite infections and intra-species genetic diversity that would be impossible with Sanger sequencing. Amplicon-based NGS can detect multiple parasite species in a single sample and identify mixed subtype infections within a single host [5]. For example, studies of Blastocystis and Giardia have revealed extensive genetic diversity and frequent mixed infections that were previously undetectable with Sanger sequencing [5].

This capability provides crucial insights into parasite epidemiology, transmission dynamics, and potential drug resistance. A study on Cryptosporidium demonstrated that NGS could uncover within-host genetic diversity and delineate mixed subtype infections that were missed by Sanger sequencing [5]. This higher resolution enables more precise tracking of transmission routes and identification of potentially divergent strains with different clinical outcomes or treatment responses.

Environmental Sampling and One Health Approaches

DNA metabarcoding extends the utility of barcoding to complex environmental samples, enabling comprehensive surveillance of parasites in ecosystems. This approach aligns with One Health perspectives that recognize the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Applications include:

• Detection of zoonotic Cryptosporidium species in water catchments [5]
• Monitoring parasite diversity in river water and sediment using next-generation sequencing [5]
• Identification of parasite assemblages in wildlife and livestock reservoirs [5]
• Comprehensive screening of commercial products for parasite contamination [20]

These environmental applications provide early warning systems for emerging parasitic diseases and enable more effective management of zoonotic transmission risks.

DNA barcoding has fundamentally transformed parasitology by providing precise, standardized methods for species identification that overcome the limitations of morphological approaches. The technique has evolved from individual specimen processing with Sanger sequencing to high-throughput analysis of complex samples using NGS technologies. While Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard for confirming specific variants and processing small numbers of samples, NGS platforms offer superior capabilities for large-scale surveys, detection of mixed infections, and comprehensive biodiversity assessments.

The choice between sequencing technologies depends on multiple factors including project scale, required resolution, available resources, and specific research questions. For targeted confirmation of known parasites or small-scale projects, Sanger sequencing provides accuracy and simplicity. For large-scale biodiversity assessments, detection of cryptic diversity, or analysis of complex samples, NGS approaches offer unparalleled throughput and resolution. As sequencing technologies continue to advance, with improvements in accuracy, read length, and portability, DNA barcoding will play an increasingly central role in parasitological research, disease surveillance, and control programs.

For decades, Sanger sequencing has served as the cornerstone of molecular parasitology, providing reliable data for species identification and genotyping. However, its limitations in detecting mixed infections and resolving complex within-host diversity have become increasingly apparent. The emergence of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies addresses these limitations by offering unparalleled depth and resolution, revolutionizing how researchers study parasite populations.

This paradigm shift is particularly impactful for barcoding studies targeting key parasitic protists: Entamoeba, Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Plasmodium. Each genus presents unique diagnostic and epidemiological challenges, from distinguishing pathogenic Entamoeba histolytica from non-pathogenic Entamoeba dispar to unraveling the complex subtype diversity of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in outbreak settings. This guide objectively compares the performance of Sanger sequencing and NGS barcoding for these parasites, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies to inform research and diagnostic development.

Performance Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS Barcoding

The following table summarizes key performance metrics for Sanger sequencing and NGS based on published experimental studies.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Sanger Sequencing and NGS for Parasite Barcoding

Parasite Genus	Key Genetic Target(s)	Sanger Sequencing Limitations	NGS Advantages	Supporting Experimental Data
Entamoeba	18S rRNA gene [24]	Cannot differentiate mixed archamoebid infections; lower sensitivity [25].	Detects and differentiates mixed species/subtype infections in a single run [25] [5].	Metabarcoding detected E. dispar, E. hartmanni, and E. coli RL1/RL2 in 61% (22/36) of samples [25].
Cryptosporidium	gp60 gene [26]	Fails to detect minority variants in mixed infections [26].	Identifies multiple subtype families and within-subtype diversity simultaneously [26].	NGS detected minority variants (0.1-1%) in controlled mixtures; Sanger sequencing failed to detect them [26].
Giardia	gdh, bg, tpi genes [27] [28]	Produces mixed chromatograms or misses rare types in mixed assemblages [27].	Reveals extensive within-host subtype diversity and identifies shared outbreak strains [27].	Metabarcoding identified multiple G. intestinalis subtypes in 13/16 human samples; Sanger sequencing missed shared outbreak strains [27].
Plasmodium	Pfrh3 (for cellular barcoding), 18S rRNA [14] [29]	Low-throughput for competitive growth or fitness assays [29].	Enables high-throughput, multiplexed tracking of barcoded strains for fitness and drug studies [29].	Barcode sequencing (BarSeq) quantified growth dynamics of 6 uniquely barcoded P. falciparum lines in a single coculture [29].

Detailed Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Multiplex Real-Time PCR for Stool Protozoa

Application: Simultaneous detection and differentiation of Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, and Cryptosporidium parvum from stool samples [24].

• DNA Extraction: Fecal suspensions are subjected to a sodium dodecyl sulfate-proteinase K treatment (2 hours at 55°C). DNA is then isolated using spin column technology (e.g., QIAamp tissue kit). An internal control (e.g., phocin herpesvirus 1) is added to the lysis buffer to monitor PCR inhibition [24].
• Primer and Probe Design: Species-specific primers and TaqMan probes are designed to target the small-subunit (SSU) rRNA gene for E. histolytica and G. lamblia, and a 138-bp fragment for C. parvum. The E. histolytica probe is designed to specifically bind to the pathogenic species and not the morphologically identical E. dispar [24].
• PCR Amplification: The multiplex real-time PCR is performed in a single tube containing all primer and probe sets. The reaction conditions are optimized to ensure 100% specificity and sensitivity as validated on well-defined stool samples and control DNA [24].

Metabarcoding for Complex Eukaryotic Communities

Application: Broad detection and differentiation of eukaryotic protists in fecal or environmental samples using 18S rDNA [25] [5].

• Library Preparation: This protocol involves a two-step PCR approach.
  • Primary Amplification: Universal eukaryotic primers targeting hypervariable regions of the 18S rRNA gene (e.g., V3-V4, V4-V9) are used to generate the primary amplicon from fecal DNA [25].
  • Indexing PCR: A second, limited-cycle PCR is performed to add dual indices and sequencing adapters required for the NGS platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq) [25].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Sequencing reads are demultiplexed, quality-filtered, and clustered into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs). These are then classified taxonomically by comparison against curated reference databases (e.g., SILVA, in-house databases) to determine the species and subtypes present [25] [5].

Cellular Barcoding for Within-Host Population Dynamics

Application: Tracking the population dynamics and tissue colonization of parasites like Plasmodium falciparum and Toxoplasma gondii during infection [29] [30].

• Barcode Library Generation: A library of dozens to hundreds of unique DNA barcode sequences (e.g., 11 bp for P. falciparum, 60 nt for T. gondii) is cloned into a donor vector flanked by homology arms for a specific genomic locus (e.g., the non-essential pfrh3 or uprt gene) [29] [30].
• CRISPR/Cas9 Transfection: Parasites are co-transfected with the pool of barcoded donor vectors and a CRISPR/Cas9 plasmid that induces a double-strand break at the target locus. Homology-directed repair integrates a single barcode into the genome of individual parasites [29] [30].
• Pooled Phenotyping and Barcode Sequencing (BarSeq): A population of uniquely barcoded parasites is pooled and subjected to in vitro or in vivo assays (e.g., drug pressure, growth competition, host infection). Genomic DNA is extracted at different time points, and the barcode region is amplified and sequenced. The relative abundance of each barcode is quantified to track clonal dynamics within the population [29] [30].

The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for cellular barcoding of protozoan parasites.

Figure 1: Workflow for cellular barcoding of protozoan parasites to study population dynamics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of parasite barcoding requires specific reagents and tools. The following table lists key solutions used in the protocols cited in this guide.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Parasite Barcoding

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function	Example Use-Case
Universal 18S rDNA Primers (e.g., F566 & 1776R [14])	Amplify a broad range of eukaryotic parasites from complex samples for metabarcoding.	Detection of apicomplexan and euglenozoan parasites from blood samples [14].
Blocking Primers (C3 spacer-modified oligos, PNA oligos [14])	Selectively inhibit amplification of host DNA (e.g., human, mammalian 18S rDNA) to enrich for parasite sequences.	Improving sensitivity of blood parasite detection by suppressing overwhelming host DNA background [14].
Species-Specific TaqMan Probes (e.g., MGB probes [24])	Enable specific detection and quantification of target parasite DNA in multiplex real-time PCR assays.	Differentiating pathogenic E. histolytica from non-pathogenic E. dispar in stool samples [24].
CRISPR/Cas9 System & Donor Vectors	Enable precise integration of unique DNA barcodes into specific, non-essential parasite genomic loci.	Generating libraries of barcoded P. falciparum or T. gondii strains for competitive growth assays [29] [30].
Homology-Directed Repair (HDR) Donor Templates (60-120 nt ss/ds oligos [30])	Serve as the template for precise CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing, carrying the unique barcode sequence.	Cellular barcoding of T. gondii at the UPRT locus and T. brucei at the AAT6 locus [30].
4-Methyl-(2-thiophenyl)quinoline	4-Methyl-(2-thiophenyl)quinoline For Research	4-Methyl-(2-thiophenyl)quinoline is a research chemical For Research Use Only (RUO). Explore its applications in antimicrobial and pharmaceutical development. Not for human consumption.
2-Methylallylamine hydrochloride	2-Methylallylamine hydrochloride, CAS:28148-54-1, MF:C4H10ClN, MW:107.58 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The evidence from contemporary studies clearly demonstrates that NGS-based barcoding surpasses Sanger sequencing in critical areas for parasite research: detecting mixed infections, unraveling within-host diversity, and enabling high-throughput functional genomics. While Sanger sequencing remains a valuable tool for specific, single-target questions, NGS provides a more comprehensive and realistic view of parasite populations in clinical, environmental, and experimental contexts.

The choice between these technologies ultimately depends on the research question. For routine genotyping of a known, single-species infection, Sanger may suffice. However, for investigating outbreaks, understanding transmission dynamics, quantifying fitness costs of drug resistance, or discovering cryptic species, NGS barcoding is the unequivocally superior tool, providing the depth and breadth of data needed to advance the field of molecular parasitology.

The field of DNA sequencing has undergone a revolutionary transformation, evolving from techniques that read single gene fragments to technologies that can simultaneously process millions of DNA molecules. This evolution has profoundly impacted diverse areas of biological research, including parasitology, where accurate species identification and drug resistance profiling are paramount. For researchers tracking parasitic infections, the choice of sequencing technology directly influences diagnostic accuracy, depth of genetic information, and the ability to detect mixed infections or novel strains. Each generation of sequencing technology—from the first-generation Sanger method, to the second-generation massively parallel platforms like Illumina, to the third-generation single-molecule real-time approaches such as Oxford Nanopore—has brought distinct advantages and limitations. This guide provides an objective comparison of these platforms within the context of parasite barcoding research, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in their selection of appropriate genomic tools.

Technology Platform Comparison

Sequencing technologies are categorized into generations based on their underlying biochemistry and operational scale. First-generation sequencing, represented by the Sanger method, separates single DNA fragments. Second-generation or next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, such as Illumina, perform massively parallel sequencing of clonally amplified DNA fragments. Third-generation technologies, including Oxford Nanopore, sequence single molecules in real time, producing significantly longer reads [31].

Performance Metrics for Parasite Research

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of each platform relevant to parasite barcoding studies, with data drawn from recent applications in the field.

Table 1: Sequencing Platform Comparison for Parasite Barcoding Applications

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Illumina (MiSeq)	Oxford Nanopore
Generation	First	Second	Third
Read Length	Up to ~1000 bp [32]	Short reads (e.g., 2x300 bp) [4]	Long reads (>1 kb demonstrated for 18S rDNA) [14]
Throughput	Low (single fragment)	High (millions of fragments) [33]	Moderate to High (varies by device)
Accuracy	High (~99.99%) [34]	High [4]	Lower than Illumina; improved with workflow [14] [35]
Cost per Sample	Cost-effective for <20 targets [33]	~$75-$130 for targeted NGS (tNGS) [31]	Varies; portable options reduce capital cost
Typical Turnaround Time	Fast for small batches	1-3 days	Real-time data streaming; minutes to hours after library prep
Sensitivity for Minor Variants	Low (limit of detection ~15-20%) [33]	High (can detect down to 1% minor alleles) [4] [33]	Can detect low-frequency variants, but error rate can be a confounder [35]
Key Parasitology Application	Validating known variants, single-gene sequencing [32]	Targeted NGS for drug resistance markers [4], 18S rDNA metabarcoding [7]	In-field species identification [14] [36], long-read barcoding

Supporting Experimental Data in Parasitology

A direct comparative study of Targeted Amplicon Deep sequencing (TADs) for Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers on Ion Torrent PGM (a second-generation platform similar to Illumina) and Illumina MiSeq found that both platforms showed 99.83% sequencing accuracy and 99.59% variant accuracy when compared to Sanger sequencing. However, Illumina MiSeq provided a significantly higher average read coverage per amplicon (28,886 reads) compared to the Ion Torrent PGM (1,754 reads). Both NGS platforms could reliably detect minor alleles in artificial mixtures down to a 1% density, a level of sensitivity unattainable by standard Sanger sequencing [4].

In a comparison more relevant to field applications, a study on detecting aquatic invasive species and their parasites found that Illumina sequencing remained more efficient at assigning species-level taxonomy from eDNA samples. Interestingly, for an intracellular cryptic parasite (S. destruens), Illumina failed to detect the parasite while Nanopore returned positive identifications at multiple sites, a discrepancy potentially attributable to different bioinformatic approaches or the higher error rate of Nanopore leading to misassignments [35].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To illustrate how these technologies are applied in practice, below are detailed methodologies from key studies cited in this guide.

Protocol: Targeted NGS for Pf Drug Resistance Markers (Illumina/Ion Torrent)

This protocol, adapted from a 2022 Scientific Reports paper, outlines the steps for using TADs to genotype antimalarial drug resistance genes in P. falciparum [4].

• Sample Collection and DNA Extraction: Genomic DNA is extracted from whole blood samples or blood spots from Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs).
• Multiplex PCR Amplification: Target amplicons for genes of interest (e.g., pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, and pfcytochrome b) are amplified using a multiplex PCR reaction.
• Library Preparation:
  • For Ion Torrent PGM: Amplicons are barcoded and ligated to platform-specific adapters. The library is then clonally amplified on ion sphere particles via emulsion PCR.
  • For Illumina MiSeq: Amplicons are similarly barcoded and adapted. The library is loaded onto a flow cell where bridge amplification generates clonal clusters.
• Sequencing: The prepared library is sequenced on the respective platform. The study used the Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq.
• Data Analysis: Raw sequencing reads are aligned to a P. falciparum reference genome (e.g., strain 3D7). Variant calling is performed to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with drug resistance. The results can be validated against conventional Sanger sequencing.

Protocol: 18S rDNA Barcoding for Blood Parasites (Nanopore)

This protocol, from a 2025 Scientific Reports paper, describes a targeted NGS approach for comprehensive blood parasite detection using the portable Nanopore platform [14].

• Primer Design: Universal primers (F566 and 1776R) targeting the V4–V9 hypervariable regions of the 18S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) gene are selected to cover a wide range of eukaryotic parasites and generate a >1 kb amplicon for improved species-level resolution.
• Blocking Primer Design: To overcome the challenge of overwhelming host DNA in blood samples, two blocking primers are designed:
  • A C3 spacer-modified oligo that competes with the universal reverse primer for binding to host 18S rDNA.
  • A Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligo that binds to the host sequence and inhibits polymerase elongation.
• PCR Amplification with Host Suppression: The target 18S rDNA region is amplified from sample DNA using the universal primers in the presence of the blocking primers. This selectively suppresses the amplification of host (mammalian) 18S rDNA, thereby enriching for parasite DNA.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: The amplified products are prepared into a sequencing library using the Ligation Sequencing Kit and loaded onto a MinION flow cell (Oxford Nanopore).
• Real-Time Analysis and Species ID: Sequencing occurs in real-time. The generated reads are basecalled in real-time and aligned against a database of 18S rDNA sequences for species identification.

Workflow and Technology Selection

The following diagram visualizes the core workflows for Sanger, Illumina, and Nanopore sequencing technologies, highlighting their key operational stages from sample input to data output.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Parasite Barcoding

Successful implementation of sequencing projects for parasite research relies on a suite of specialized reagents and materials. The table below details key solutions used in the featured experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Parasite Sequencing Studies

Item	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Primer pairs (e.g., F566/1776R) that anneal to conserved regions of the 18S gene to amplify hypervariable regions (e.g., V4-V9) across diverse eukaryotes [14].	Broad-spectrum detection and identification of parasitic protists in blood or fecal samples [14] [7].
Blocking Primers (PNA/C3-spacer)	Modified oligonucleotides that bind specifically to host (e.g., mammalian) DNA during PCR and block its amplification, thereby enriching for pathogen sequences in a host-dominated background [14].	Selective amplification of parasite 18S rDNA from whole blood samples, where host DNA is abundant [14].
Multiplex PCR Assays	Pre-designed sets of primers that simultaneously amplify multiple genomic targets of interest (e.g., drug resistance genes pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, etc.) in a single reaction [4].	High-throughput genotyping of antimalarial drug resistance markers in Plasmodium falciparum [4].
Barcodes/Index Adapters	Short, unique DNA sequences ligated to amplicons from individual samples, allowing multiple samples to be pooled and sequenced in a single run while maintaining sample identity during analysis [4] [7].	Multiplexing up to 96 samples in one NGS run to significantly reduce per-sample costs [4] [31].
Platform-Specific Sequencing Kits	Reagent kits containing enzymes, buffers, and nucleotides optimized for the specific biochemistry of each sequencing platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq Reagent Kits, Oxford Nanopore Ligation Sequencing Kits).	Performing the sequencing reaction on the respective instrument according to the manufacturer's protocol [4] [14].
4-Chloro-2-methyl-3-nitropyridine	4-Chloro-2-methyl-3-nitropyridine, CAS:23056-35-1, MF:C6H5ClN2O2, MW:172.57 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
2-Methyl-3-methoxybenzoyl chloride	2-Methyl-3-methoxybenzoyl chloride, CAS:24487-91-0, MF:C9H9ClO2, MW:184.62 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The evolution from first- to third-generation sequencing technologies has equipped parasitology researchers with a powerful and diverse toolkit. The choice of platform is not a matter of identifying a single "best" technology, but rather of selecting the most appropriate tool based on the specific research question. Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard for validating known variants and sequencing single genes in a limited number of samples. Illumina and other second-generation platforms offer unparalleled throughput, accuracy, and sensitivity for targeted NGS and deep metabarcoding studies, such as large-scale surveillance of drug resistance or complex parasite communities. Oxford Nanopore and other third-generation technologies provide the advantages of portability and long reads, enabling real-time, in-field species identification and simplifying the assembly of complex genomic regions. As costs continue to decrease and workflows become more streamlined, the integration of these complementary technologies will undoubtedly accelerate discoveries in parasite biology, epidemiology, and drug development.

Implementing Barcoding Protocols: From Sample to Sequence

For parasite barcoding research, selecting the appropriate sequencing technology is a critical decision that balances cost, throughput, and analytical requirements. Sanger sequencing, the chain-termination method developed by Frederick Sanger, has been the gold standard for decades for verifying DNA sequences and conducting targeted analyses [6] [21]. In contrast, Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) encompasses several massively parallel sequencing technologies capable of processing millions of fragments simultaneously [33] [37]. This guide provides a detailed, step-by-step breakdown of the Sanger barcoding workflow and objectively compares it with NGS, providing researchers with the data needed to select the optimal method for their specific parasite studies.

Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS: A Technical Comparison for Barcoding

The core difference between these technologies lies in their throughput and methodology. While Sanger sequences a single DNA fragment per reaction, NGS sequences millions of fragments in parallel [33]. The table below summarizes their key characteristics, which directly influence their application in barcoding projects.

Table 1: Key technical differences between Sanger sequencing and NGS

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Fundamental Method	Chain termination using dideoxynucleotides (ddNTPs) [21] [38]	Massively parallel sequencing (e.g., Sequencing by Synthesis) [21]
Throughput	Low to medium; one fragment per reaction [21]	Extremely high; millions to billions of fragments per run [33] [21]
Read Length	Longer reads: 500 - 1000 base pairs [21]	Shorter reads: 50 - 300 base pairs for short-read platforms [21]
Cost Efficiency	Low cost per run for a few samples; high cost per base for large projects [21]	High cost per run; very low cost per base for high-volume sequencing [37] [21]
Optimal Barcoding Use Case	Targeted confirmation, single-gene barcoding, verifying known loci [6] [21]	Whole-genome sequencing, multiplexed barcoding of many samples, discovering novel variants [33] [20]
Variant Detection Sensitivity	Low sensitivity for rare variants (~15-20% limit of detection) [33]	High sensitivity; can detect rare variants down to ~1% allele frequency [33] [21]
Data Analysis	Simple; requires basic sequence alignment software [21]	Complex; requires sophisticated bioinformatics for alignment and variant calling [37] [21]
Speed per Sample	Fast for a few targets (hours to a day) [21]	Faster for high sample volumes (days for entire runs) [33]

For parasite barcoding, this means Sanger is ideal for projects focusing on a small number of known genes or for confirming specific variants, such as identifying a suspected parasite species using a standardized barcode locus like COI [39]. NGS is more effective for discovering novel parasites, conducting population-level studies, or when the target is a complex mixture of organisms, as its deep coverage can reveal low-frequency variants missed by Sanger [33] [20].

Step-by-Step Sanger Barcoding Workflow

The Sanger barcoding process involves a series of critical steps from sample collection to data analysis. The following workflow diagram outlines the entire process.

Sanger barcoding workflow from sample to result.

Step 1: Sample Collection and DNA Extraction

The process begins with collecting parasite material, which must be preserved appropriately (e.g., in ethanol) to maintain DNA integrity [39]. The critical goal of DNA extraction is to obtain long, non-degraded strands of DNA [6]. The extraction method must be chosen to match the tissue type; for example, parasites with tough cuticles may require additional lysis steps [39]. The resulting DNA must be assessed for yield and purity using spectrophotometry (A260/280 ratio) to ensure it is of sufficient quality and free of contaminants that could inhibit subsequent reactions [39].

Step 2: PCR Amplification of the Barcode Locus

This step selectively amplifies the standard DNA barcode region using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). For parasites, common barcode loci include:

• COI (Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I): The standard for animal species, including many metazoan parasites [39].
• ITS (Internal Transcribed Spacer): The official barcode for fungi and often used for other groups [20] [39].

Primer design is crucial for success. Primers should be specific to the target parasite taxon to avoid co-amplification of host DNA or non-target organisms [6]. The PCR reaction must be optimized, and controls are essential: a no-template control checks for contamination, while a positive control with known DNA verifies the reaction works [39].

Step 3: Amplicon Purification

After PCR, the product must be purified to remove leftover reagents such as unused primers, dNTPs, and enzyme, which can interfere with the Sanger sequencing reaction [6]. This can be achieved using bead-based, column-based, or enzymatic clean-up kits [6]. The purified DNA is then quantified to ensure it meets the concentration requirements of the sequencing facility or instrument [6].

Step 4: Sanger Sequencing Reaction

The purified PCR product is used as the template in a cycle sequencing reaction. This specialized PCR, also known as chain-termination PCR, uses a single primer and a mixture of normal deoxynucleotides (dNTPs) and fluorescently labeled dideoxynucleotides (ddNTPs) [38]. When a ddNTP is incorporated by the DNA polymerase, it terminates the growing DNA chain. This results in a collection of DNA fragments of varying lengths, each ending with a fluorescently labeled ddNTP corresponding to the terminal base [38].

Step 5: Capillary Electrophoresis

The products from the sequencing reaction are injected into a capillary array filled with a polymer matrix. An electrical current is applied, separating the DNA fragments by size [38]. As the shortest fragments pass a laser detector first, the laser excites the fluorescent dye, and the emitted light is captured. The sequence of colors translates directly into the DNA sequence, which is software-output as a chromatogram [38].

Step 6: Data Analysis and Identification

The raw sequence from the chromatogram must undergo quality checks: trimming low-quality base calls from the ends and inspecting for double peaks that might indicate mixed templates or contamination [39]. The clean, reliable sequence is then used for identification by querying public reference databases such as:

• BOLD (Barcode of Life Data Systems): A curated database specifically for DNA barcodes with tools for analysis [39].
• NCBI GenBank: A comprehensive public database that can be searched using the BLAST tool [39].

Identification is made based on the closest match, considering both the percentage of identity and the coverage of the alignment [39].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Sanger Barcoding

A successful Sanger barcoding experiment relies on several key reagents and materials.

Table 2: Key reagents and materials for Sanger barcoding

Reagent/Material	Function	Key Considerations
DNA Extraction Kit	Isolates DNA from parasite tissue.	Must be appropriate for sample type (e.g., tissue, blood, feces). Kits designed for long fragments are preferred [6].
PCR Primers	Specifically amplifies the target barcode locus.	Must be designed for the parasite taxon and barcode gene (e.g., COI, ITS). Should avoid secondary structures and dimer formation [6] [39].
DNA Polymerase	Enzymatically synthesizes new DNA strands during PCR.	Should have high fidelity and robust performance.
dNTPs & ddNTPs	The building blocks of DNA (dNTPs) and the chain-terminating nucleotides (ddNTPs) for sequencing.	In Sanger sequencing, ddNTPs are fluorescently labeled for detection [38].
Purification Kit	Removes contaminants and unused reagents from PCR amplicons.	Bead- or column-based methods are common. Essential for a clean sequencing reaction [6].
BigDye Terminators	Proprietary reagent mix containing fluorescent ddNTPs, enzymes, and buffer for the cycle sequencing reaction.	A standard for modern automated Sanger sequencing.

Comparative Experimental Data: Sanger vs. NGS in Barcoding

The choice between Sanger and NGS is often dictated by the specific goals of the barcoding study. The following table summarizes performance comparisons based on key experimental parameters.

Table 3: Experimental performance comparison for DNA barcoding

Experimental Parameter	Sanger Sequencing Performance	NGS Performance	Supporting Evidence
Throughput (Samples/Run)	1 - 96 samples (single reactions or plate) [40]	Millions of reads, 100s-1000s of samples via multiplexing [20]	NGS can barcode 190+ specimens in 12.5% of a sequencing run [20].
Variant Detection Limit	~15-20% allele frequency [33]	Can detect variants at 1-5% allele frequency [33] [21]	Crucial for detecting mixed parasite infections.
Ability to Resolve Complex Samples	Low; gives a single, consensus sequence. Fails with mixed templates [20]	High; can detect multiple species/strains in a single sample [20]	NGS can detect heteroplasmy, pseudogenes, and co-amplified Wolbachia in insects [20].
Turnaround Time (for low target numbers)	Fast (hours to a day) [21]	Slower for workflow (days) [21]	Sanger is efficient for simple, targeted questions [21].
Cost for Single-Gene Barcoding	Cost-effective for 1-20 targets [33]	Not cost-effective for a low number of targets [33]	Sanger remains the economical choice for focused studies [33].

Both Sanger sequencing and NGS are powerful tools for parasite barcoding, but their applications are distinct. Sanger sequencing is the recommended choice for focused, small-scale projects that require high accuracy for single genes, verification of specific variants, or when cost and simplicity are primary concerns. NGS is unequivocally superior for large-scale, discovery-oriented studies that aim to detect novel parasites, resolve complex mixtures of infections, or require high-throughput analysis of hundreds to thousands of samples. By understanding the workflows and comparative data outlined in this guide, researchers can make an informed, strategic decision that optimizes resources and maximizes the success of their parasite barcoding research.

Within parasitology, accurate species identification is fundamental for diagnosis, understanding transmission dynamics, and tracking drug resistance. DNA barcoding, the use of short, standardized genetic markers, has revolutionized this field. While Sanger sequencing long served as the standard for generating DNA barcodes, the advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) has introduced high-throughput methods that can characterize pathogenic communities from complex samples. Two primary NGS approaches have emerged: metagenomic NGS (mNGS) and targeted NGS (tNGS), also known as amplicon-based NGS. Understanding their comparative advantages, supported by experimental data and tailored to parasite research, is crucial for selecting the appropriate tool in modern laboratories. This guide provides an objective comparison of these two powerful strategies.

Head-to-Head Comparison: mNGS vs. tNGS for Pathogen Detection

Extensive clinical studies, primarily from respiratory infection research, provide robust quantitative data on the performance characteristics of mNGS and tNGS. The table below summarizes key comparative metrics.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of mNGS and tNGS from Clinical Studies

Performance Metric	Metagenomic NGS (mNGS)	Targeted NGS (tNGS)	Research Context
Sensitivity	74.75%–95.08% [41] [42]	78.64%–96.1% [41] [43]	Lower respiratory tract infections [41] [42] [43]
Specificity	81.82%–90.74% [41] [42]	85.19%–93.94% [41] [42]	Lower respiratory tract infections [41] [42]
Turnaround Time (TAT)	~20 hours [44]	Shorter than mNGS [44]	Lower respiratory tract infections [44]
Cost (Reagent & Labor)	~$840 per sample [44]	Lower than mNGS [44]	Lower respiratory tract infections [44]
Number of Species Identified	80 species [44]	71 (capture-based) to 65 (amplification-based) species [44]	Lower respiratory tract infections [44]
Key Strength	Detection of rare, novel, or unexpected pathogens; no prior knowledge needed [44] [45]	High sensitivity for targeted taxa; superior for fungal detection (e.g., Pneumocystis jirovecii); identifies resistance genes [44] [41] [42]	Clinical infection diagnosis [44] [41] [42]

A 2025 meta-analysis of periprosthetic joint infections confirmed these general trends, reporting that mNGS demonstrates higher sensitivity, while tNGS exhibits exceptional specificity [46]. The choice between them often hinges on the diagnostic question: whether to "rule out" with high sensitivity or "rule in" with high specificity.

Experimental Insights and Workflow Comparisons

Key Workflow Steps and Their Differences

The fundamental difference between mNGS and tNGS lies in the wet-lab workflow, which directly influences the data output and analytical requirements. The following diagram illustrates the two parallel processes.

Detailed Methodologies from Cited Experiments

Metagenomic NGS (mNGS) Protocol

A standard mNGS protocol, as used in comparative studies, involves the following steps [44] [42]:

• Sample Processing: 1 mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) is used. Human DNA is removed enzymatically using Benzonase and Tween20 to increase the relative proportion of microbial sequences [44].
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Total DNA and RNA are co-extracted using a kit such as the QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit. RNA undergoes reverse transcription to cDNA [44] [42].
• Library Preparation: The DNA and cDNA are fragmented, and sequencing adapters are ligated using a system like the Ovation Ultralow System V2. No amplification of specific targets occurs at this stage [44].
• Sequencing: Libraries are sequenced on platforms like the Illumina NextSeq 550, generating millions of 75-bp single-end reads [44] [42].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Raw reads are quality-filtered (Fastp) and low-complexity sequences are removed.
  • Human sequence reads are identified and excluded by alignment to the hg38 reference genome (using BWA or Bowtie2).
  • The remaining microbial reads are aligned to a comprehensive microbial genome database using tools like SNAP.
  • Statistical thresholds (e.g., Reads Per Million ratio of sample to negative control ≥10) are applied to distinguish true positives from background noise [44] [42].

Targeted NGS (tNGS) Protocol

The tNGS approach, specifically amplification-based, is detailed as follows [44] [42]:

• Sample Processing: BALF samples are liquefied with dithiothreitol. The same sample volume is used as for mNGS to allow direct comparison [42].
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Total nucleic acid is extracted and purified using a kit like the MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit [42].
• Target Enrichment: This is the critical differentiating step. Ultra-multiplex PCR is performed using a pre-designed primer panel (e.g., 198 pathogen-specific primers) to amplify target sequences from bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Some protocols use two rounds of PCR amplification for optimal enrichment [44] [42].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: The amplified PCR products are purified, and sequencing adapters/barcodes are added. The final library is sequenced on a platform like the Illumina MiniSeq, requiring a lower sequencing depth (~0.1 million reads) due to the enrichment [44].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Data is processed through a vendor-specific pipeline (e.g., KingCreate). After basic quality control, reads are directly aligned to a curated database of the targeted pathogens.
  • The enrichment step simplifies analysis, as the data is predominantly composed of sequences from the pre-defined panel, allowing for sensitive detection and sometimes quantification [44].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

The successful implementation of NGS barcoding strategies relies on a suite of specialized reagents and tools. The following table itemizes key solutions required for the workflows described in the experimental protocols.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for NGS Barcoding

Research Reagent	Function	Example Products (from cited studies)
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit	Simultaneous extraction of DNA and RNA from clinical samples, crucial for comprehensive pathogen detection.	QIAamp UCP Pathogen DNA Kit [44], MagPure Pathogen DNA/RNA Kit [42]
Host DNA Depletion Reagent	Selectively degrades host nucleic acids (e.g., human DNA) to increase microbial sequencing depth in mNGS.	Benzonase [44]
Library Preparation Kit	Prepares nucleic acid fragments for sequencing by adding required adapters.	Ovation Ultralow System V2 [44]
Targeted Enrichment Panel	Set of primers/probes designed to amplify and enrich genetic targets from a predefined list of pathogens (for tNGS).	Respiratory Pathogen Detection Kit (198-plex primer panel) [44] [42]
Blocking Primers	Oligonucleotides that suppress amplification of host DNA (e.g., mammalian 18S rDNA) during PCR, improving parasite detection in tNGS.	C3 spacer-modified oligos, Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligos [8]
Bioinformatics Database	Curated genomic reference database used to assign sequenced reads to specific microbial species.	NCBI RefSeq, GenBank [44] [42]
1-(Dimethoxymethyl)-2-iodobenzene	1-(Dimethoxymethyl)-2-iodobenzene, CAS:933672-30-1, MF:C9H11IO2, MW:278.09 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Methyl 3-(piperazin-1-yl)propanoate	Methyl 3-(piperazin-1-yl)propanoate, CAS:43032-40-2, MF:C8H16N2O2, MW:172.22 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Both mNGS and tNGS are powerful successors to Sanger sequencing for parasite barcoding, each with a distinct clinical and research profile. mNGS is a discovery-oriented tool, ideal for detecting rare, novel, or completely unexpected pathogens without prior assumptions, making it invaluable for exploratory studies and difficult-to-diagnose cases [44] [45]. Its main drawbacks are higher cost and longer turnaround time. In contrast, tNGS is a precision tool best suited for sensitive and specific detection of a predefined set of pathogens, often at a lower cost and with a faster result [44] [41]. Its application in detecting fungi and resistance genes is particularly notable [41] [42]. The decision between them is not a matter of superiority but of strategic alignment with the research question, available resources, and the specific clinical or investigative context.

Molecular barcoding has revolutionized parasitology, enabling precise species identification, drug resistance monitoring, and understanding of parasite epidemiology. The choice between Sanger sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) represents a critical methodological crossroad that directly influences primer design strategies and experimental outcomes. Each approach offers distinct advantages and limitations that must be carefully balanced against research objectives, resources, and the specific parasitic markers being investigated.

The 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene serves as a cornerstone for eukaryotic parasite identification and phylogenetic studies due to its highly conserved regions interspersed with variable domains. The gp60 gene (also known as SAG60 or Cpgp40/15) is a crucial genetic marker for classifying subtypes and understanding the epidemiology of Cryptosporidium species, with implications for outbreak investigations and transmission dynamics. The K13 propeller gene (Plasmodium falciparum kelch13) has emerged as the primary molecular marker for tracking artemisinin resistance in malaria parasites, making its accurate sequencing vital for global antimicrobial resistance surveillance [4] [45].

This guide systematically compares primer design and performance across Sanger sequencing and NGS platforms, providing researchers with evidence-based recommendations for selecting appropriate methodologies for parasite barcoding research.

Comparative Analysis of Sequencing Platforms

Performance Characteristics of Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS

Table 1: Platform comparison for parasitic marker sequencing

Parameter	Sanger Sequencing	Targeted NGS (Illumina MiSeq)	Targeted NGS (Ion Torrent PGM)
Reads per amplicon (mean)	Single sequence chromatogram	28,886 reads [4]	1,754 reads [4]
Detection of minor alleles	Limited, requires specialized deconvolution [47]	1% minor allele frequency at 500X coverage [4]	1% minor allele frequency at 500X coverage [4]
Multiplexing capacity	Low (individual reactions)	High (up to 96 samples per run) [4]	High (up to 96 samples per run) [4]
Cost efficiency	Lower for small batches	86% cost reduction vs. Sanger for 96-plex [4]	86% cost reduction vs. Sanger for 96-plex [4]
Variant accuracy	99.59% [4]	99.59% [4]	99.59% [4]
Best suited for	Single isolate genotyping, low-complexity samples	Mixed infections, population studies, resistance surveillance [48] [4]	Mixed infections, population studies, resistance surveillance [4]

Detection Sensitivity Across Methodologies

Table 2: Sensitivity comparison for parasite detection methods

Method	Relative Sensitivity	Application Example	Reference
Microscopy	Low (10-40% for Entamoeba histolytica) [45]	Routine parasite screening	[45]
Conventional PCR (cPCR) + Sanger	Baseline (24% prevalence for Blastocystis) [48]	Single pathogen detection	[48]
qPCR + Sanger	Moderate (29% prevalence for Blastocystis) [48]	Quantification with genotyping	[48]
NGS (Illumina)	High (100% for known markers at >500X coverage) [4]	Comprehensive resistance profiling	[4]
Nanopore NGS	Emerging (detection of 1 parasite/μL blood) [14]	Field applications, unknown pathogen detection	[14]

Primer Design Considerations by Genetic Marker

18S rRNA Gene Primers

The 18S rRNA gene remains the most widely used genetic marker for broad-spectrum parasite identification and phylogenetic studies. Primer selection must balance taxonomic coverage with specificity to avoid host DNA amplification.

Table 3: 18S rRNA primer selection guide

Primer Set	Target Region	Amplicon Size	Coverage	Applications	Considerations
F566/1776R	V4-V9	~1,200 bp	>60% eukaryotes [14]	Broad parasite detection, Nanopore sequencing	Requires host blocking primers for blood samples [14]
nu-SSU-1333-5'/nu-SSU-1647-3' (FF390/FR1)	V4-V5	~314 bp	83.4-86.5% fungi [49]	Fungal parasite community analysis	Short length ideal for Illumina [49]
P-SSU-316F/GIC758R	V1-V4	482 bp	Rumen ciliates [50]	Gastrointestinal protozoa in ruminants	Limited to specific host systems [50]
V4 region primers	V4 only	~400 bp	Highest discriminatory power [51]	Community ecology, biodiversity assessments	Paired-end reads ≥150bp required for genus-level discrimination [51]

For blood parasites, the F566/1776R primer combination targeting the V4-V9 regions has demonstrated excellent performance when combined with blocking primers to suppress host 18S rDNA amplification. Two blocking strategies have proven effective: a C3 spacer-modified oligo competing with the universal reverse primer and a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) oligo that inhibits polymerase elongation [14].

The design of effective blocking primers requires:

• Sequence specificity to host 18S rRNA gene
• 3'-end modifications (C3 spacer or PNA) to prevent polymerase extension
• Optimal concentration titration to maximize host DNA suppression while minimizing non-specific effects

For the V4-V9 universal primers, two blocking primers were specifically developed: 3SpC3Hs1829R (overlapping with universal reverse primer 1776R with C3 spacer modification) and PNAHs1626 (PNA oligo targeting host sequences) [14].

K13 Propeller Gene Primers

The K13 gene (Plasmodium falciparum kelch13) requires meticulous primer design to accurately capture resistance-conferring mutations across the entire propeller domain.

Experimental Protocol for K13 Genotyping [4]:

• DNA Extraction: Use commercial blood extraction kits (e.g., Qiagen) from whole blood or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) strips
• Primary PCR: Amplify the entire K13 propeller domain using nested approach
  • Reaction volume: 25 μL
  • Cycling conditions: 95°C for 5 min, then 35 cycles of 98°C for 10 sec, 58°C for 30 sec, 72°C for 1 min
  • Primer concentrations: 0.2 μM each
• Library Preparation (for NGS):
  • Use dual-indexing strategy with Illumina compatibility
  • Cleanup with AMPure XP beads
  • Quantify with fluorometric methods
• Sequencing:
  • Illumina MiSeq: 2×250 bp paired-end runs
  • Minimum coverage: 500X for reliable 1% variant detection

Critical Considerations:

• Primer binding sites must avoid known polymorphic regions in field isolates
• Amplicon size should be optimized for the sequencing platform (300-500 bp for Illumina)
• Multiplexing requires careful index design to prevent cross-talk

gp60 Gene Primers

The gp60 gene (also known as SAG60 or Cpgp40/15) presents unique challenges due to its repetitive region and high sequence diversity across Cryptosporidium species and subtypes.

Primer Design Challenges:

• Target the non-repetitive 5' and 3' regions flanking the hypervariable microsatellite
• Account for substantial sequence variation between species
• Balance specificity with broad subtype coverage

Methodology for Subtyping:

• Primary Amplification: Target conserved regions upstream and downstream of trinucleotide repeats
• Fragment Analysis: Initial sizing of microsatellite region
• Sequencing: Comprehensive analysis of both repetitive and flanking regions
• Bioinformatic Classification: Compare to established subtype reference sequences

Experimental Protocols for Parasite Marker Sequencing

NGS Workflow for Multi-Gene Parasite Resistance Profiling

Diagram 1: Comprehensive NGS workflow for parallel parasite marker analysis

Sanger Sequencing with Chromatogram Deconvolution for Mixed Infections

While conventional Sanger sequencing typically identifies only the dominant sequence in a sample, advanced computational deconvolution methods enable quantitative analysis of mixed infections. This approach is particularly valuable in high-transmission settings where polyclonal infections exceed 50% of isolates [47].

Protocol for Deconvolution of Sanger Chromatograms [47]:

• PCR Amplification: Standard amplification of target gene
• Sanger Sequencing: Conventional capillary electrophoresis
• Data Processing:
  • Import ab1 chromatogram files
  • Identify heterozygous positions with secondary peaks
  • Apply codon-based modeling at each polymorphic site
• Quantitative Analysis:
  • Calculate relative proportions of amino acids at each codon
  • Determine haplotype frequencies based on linkage patterns
  • Report prevalence of resistance alleles as continuous variables

Validation Performance:

• Significant correlation between predicted and measured allele proportions (p < 0.001)
• Accurate quantification of Pfdhps and Pfdhfr resistance alleles in field samples
• Detection of novel mutations (e.g., D484T and D545N in Pfdhps) [47]

This method provides a cost-effective alternative for quantifying mixed genotypes without NGS infrastructure, though with lower multiplexing capacity and sensitivity for rare variants (<15-20%).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key reagents and materials for parasite molecular research

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Considerations
Host Blocking Primers (C3 spacer/PNA)	Suppress host DNA amplification during PCR	Blood parasite detection [14]	Requires optimization of concentration and binding conditions
Dual Indexed Adapters	Sample multiplexing in NGS	Tracking 96+ samples simultaneously [4]	Essential for cost-effective high-throughput sequencing
AMPure XP Beads	Size selection and cleanup of NGS libraries	Removing primer dimers and short fragments [4]	Critical for library quality and sequencing performance
Kapa HiFi Mastermix	High-fidelity PCR amplification	Accurate amplification of target genes [51]	Reduces amplification errors in downstream sequencing
Commercial DNA Extraction Kits (Qiagen)	Standardized nucleic acid purification	Processing diverse sample types (blood, stool, RDTs) [52] [4]	Ensures consistent yield and purity across samples
Taxon-Specific Blocking Oligos	Reduce co-amplification of non-target eukaryotes	Fungal-specific community analysis [49]	Improves target signal in complex samples
Pentadecane-d32	Pentadecane-d32, CAS:36340-20-2, MF:C15H32, MW:244.61 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
6-Azidosulfonylhexyltriethoxysilane	6-Azidosulfonylhexyltriethoxysilane, CAS:96550-26-4, MF:C12H27N3O5SSi, MW:353.51 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The choice between Sanger sequencing and NGS for parasite barcoding involves careful consideration of research objectives, infrastructure, and budgetary constraints. Sanger sequencing with advanced deconvolution algorithms provides a cost-effective solution for focused studies of single or few markers, particularly in clinical settings with limited resources. Conversely, NGS platforms offer unparalleled capacity for comprehensive resistance surveillance, outbreak investigation, and discovery of novel parasites.

Primer design must be tailored to both the sequencing platform and the specific genetic marker. For 18S rRNA gene sequencing, broad-coverage primers combined with host-blocking oligonucleotides enable sensitive detection of diverse parasites. For resistance monitoring (K13) and subtyping (gp60), primers must target conserved flanking regions while capturing informative polymorphic sites.

As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, the integration of portable nanopore platforms and multiplexed targeted sequencing will further transform parasite barcoding, making comprehensive molecular characterization accessible to diverse research and clinical settings.

CRISPR-Based Cellular Barcoding for Tracking Protozoan Population Dynamics

The study of protozoan population dynamics is crucial for understanding pathogenesis, drug resistance, and transmission patterns of parasitic diseases. Cellular barcoding has emerged as a powerful technique to track diverse pathogen populations within hosts, enabling researchers to investigate colonization bottlenecks, tissue-specific tropism, and intraspecific competition. For years, Sanger sequencing served as the gold standard for molecular identification of parasites, providing highly accurate sequence data for individual gene targets [53]. However, its inability to resolve complex mixed infections has limited its utility in population dynamics studies. The advent of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) platforms has revolutionized this field by enabling high-throughput, multiplexed analysis of thousands of barcodes simultaneously, revealing minority variants and complex haplotype distributions that were previously undetectable [48] [54].

The integration of CRISPR-based methodologies with cellular barcoding represents the latest advancement, offering unprecedented precision in generating and tracking defined protozoan populations. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of these sequencing approaches within the context of protozoan research, detailing their performance characteristics, experimental requirements, and suitability for different research objectives.

Technology Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS for Barcoding Applications

Performance Characteristics and Capabilities

Table 1: Comparative analysis of sequencing technologies for parasite barcoding applications

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Resolution	Single haplotype per reaction	Multiple haplotypes simultaneously [48]
Sensitivity for Minority Variants	Limited (typically >20%)	High (can detect variants at 2% frequency) [54]
Multiplexing Capacity	Low	High (hundreds of samples/barcodes)
Mixed Infection Detection	Requires cloning	Direct detection and quantification [48]
Throughput	Low to moderate	High
Cost per Sample	Lower for small batches	Higher but more cost-effective for large studies
Data Complexity	Low	High, requires bioinformatics expertise
Accuracy	Very high (~99.99%) [53]	High (>99.5%) but platform-dependent [55]
Read Length	Long (500-800bp) [53]	Short to long (platform-dependent)
Turnaround Time	Fast for individual samples	Longer due to library preparation and data analysis

The selection between Sanger sequencing and NGS fundamentally depends on the research question. For identifying dominant clones in a population or verifying specific genetic edits, Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard due to its exceptional accuracy and simplicity [53]. However, for exploring population complexity, detecting minority variants, or tracking multiple barcoded lineages simultaneously, NGS offers unparalleled capabilities. A study on Blastocystis subtypes demonstrated that NGS could identify mixed subtype infections that were missed by Sanger sequencing, revealing greater population complexity [48].

Quantitative Performance Assessment

Table 2: Experimental performance data from parasite barcoding studies

Study/Application	Method	Key Performance Metric	Result
Blastocystis subtyping [48]	Sanger Sequencing	Subtype detection in mixed infections	Limited
Blastocystis subtyping [48]	NGS (MiSeq)	Subtype detection in mixed infections	Comprehensive detection
Plasmodium falciparum genotyping [54]	NGS (Ion Torrent)	Sensitivity for minority haplotypes	Detection at 2% frequency
Artificial indel templates [56]	Sanger + Computational Tools	Indel frequency accuracy	Variable (tool-dependent)
CRISPR-barcoded T. gondii population [30]	NGS	Barcode diversity tracking	96 unique barcodes simultaneously

The quantitative advantages of NGS are particularly evident in studies requiring detection of low-frequency variants. In Plasmodium falciparum research, an NGS-based barcoding approach could quantitatively detect unique haplotypes comprising as little as 2% of a polyclonal infection, enabling precise mapping of parasite population dynamics during natural infections [54]. Similarly, when tracking CRISPR-barcoded Toxoplasma gondii populations, NGS could simultaneously identify and quantify 96 unique barcodes from a pooled population, revealing how parasite subpopulations differentially colonize host tissues [30].

CRISPR-Based Cellular Barcoding: Technical Implementation

Experimental Workflow and Protocol

The application of CRISPR-based cellular barcoding to protozoan pathogens involves a multi-stage process that combines molecular biology techniques with advanced sequencing. Wincott et al. (2022) established a versatile CRISPR-based method to barcode Toxoplasma gondii and Trypanosoma brucei, two evolutionarily divergent protozoan pathogens [30].

Key Protocol Steps:

• Target Selection: Identify a non-essential genomic locus for barcode integration. For T. gondii, the UPRT (uracil phosphoribosyltransferase) gene serves as an effective target, as its disruption confers resistance to 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (FUDR), enabling positive selection [30].

• gRNA Design and Donor Template Preparation: Design guide RNA (gRNA) targeting the selected locus. Synthesize a single-stranded DNA donor template containing the unique barcode sequence flanked by homology arms complementary to the target region. The barcode typically consists of random or semi-random nucleotide sequences (approximately 60 nucleotides in length).

• Parasite Transfection and Selection: Co-transfect parasites with plasmids encoding both Cas9 nuclease and the specific gRNA, along with the donor template. In T. gondii, NHEJ-deficient strains (RHΔku80) are used to enhance homologous recombination efficiency [30]. Following transfection, apply drug selection to eliminate non-transfected parasites.

• Barcode Validation: Confirm successful barcode integration by Sanger sequencing across the modified genomic locus. This quality control step ensures correct integration and identifies the specific barcode sequence for each line.

• Population Pooling and Infection: Combine multiple uniquely barcoded parasite lines in known proportions to create a diverse input population. Inoculate this pool into animal models via relevant infection routes (e.g., intraperitoneal injection for T. gondii).

• Temporal Sampling and Barcode Quantification: Harvest tissue samples at multiple time points post-infection to track population dynamics across infection stages. Extract genomic DNA and amplify barcode regions with specific primers, then sequence using NGS platforms.

• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process sequencing data to quantify relative barcode abundances using customized computational pipelines, typically implemented in platforms like Galaxy [30].

Critical Technical Considerations

The success of CRISPR-based barcoding depends on several technical factors. The strategy should delete both the protospacer DNA sequence and the protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) during barcode integration to prevent repeated Cas9 cleavage of the modified locus [30]. For population studies, generating a sufficiently complex barcode library is essential—typically 50-100 unique barcodes—to ensure adequate diversity for tracking population bottlenecks and expansions.

The selection of appropriate NGS parameters is equally crucial. For barcode sequencing, moderate depth (typically 100-500x coverage per barcode) is sufficient for accurate quantification, though deeper sequencing may be required to detect very rare variants (<1% frequency). Specialized bioinformatic pipelines must be implemented to demultiplex samples, identify barcode sequences, and quantify their relative abundances while accounting for potential PCR and sequencing errors.

Essential Research Reagents and Tools

Table 3: Key research reagents for CRISPR-based protozoan barcoding

Reagent/Tool	Function	Examples/Specifications
CRISPR-Cas9 System	Targeted DNA cleavage	Cas9 nuclease, specific gRNAs
Donor Templates	Barcode delivery	ssDNA with homology arms
Selection Markers	Enrichment of modified parasites	Drug resistance genes (e.g., FUDR for UPRT disruption)
NGS Platform	Barcode quantification	Illumina, Ion Torrent, PacBio
Computational Tools	Data analysis	Galaxy, BWA-MEM, custom scripts
Cell Culture Systems	Parasite propagation	Host cells, culture media
Animal Models	In vivo studies	Mice, other relevant hosts
DNA Extraction Kits	Nucleic acid purification	Commercial kits for specific sample types
PCR Reagents	Barcode amplification	High-fidelity polymerases

The selection of specific reagents should be guided by the protozoan species under investigation. For T. gondii, the UPRT-FUDR selection system provides efficient enrichment, while for T. brucei, targeting the AAT6 locus with eflornithine selection has proven effective [30]. NGS platform choice involves trade-offs between read length, throughput, and cost—Illumina platforms typically offer the highest accuracy for barcode quantification, while long-read technologies (Oxford Nanopore, PacBio) can resolve more complex barcode architectures.

The integration of CRISPR-based barcoding with NGS technologies has transformed our ability to investigate protozoan population dynamics with unprecedented resolution. While Sanger sequencing maintains its utility for validation and low-complexity applications, NGS provides the necessary throughput and sensitivity for comprehensive population studies. The experimental data clearly demonstrate NGS's superior capability in detecting minority variants and mixed infections, with sensitivity down to 2% frequency for haplotype detection [48] [54].

CRISPR-based cellular barcoding represents the cutting edge in this evolving field, enabling precise lineage tracking and quantification of population bottlenecks. The successful application of this approach to divergent protozoan pathogens including T. gondii and T. brucei demonstrates its broad utility [30]. As these technologies continue to advance, they will undoubtedly yield new insights into parasite biology, host-pathogen interactions, and the dynamics of infection, ultimately informing novel strategies for disease control and treatment.

The fight against malaria is critically dependent on effective antimalarial drugs, particularly artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). The emergence and spread of multidrug-resistant Plasmodium falciparum parasites pose a severe threat to global malaria control efforts [4] [57]. Molecular surveillance of drug-resistant parasites is therefore paramount for informing treatment policies and containment strategies. For years, conventional Sanger sequencing has served as the reference method for genotyping known molecular markers of antimalarial drug resistance. However, the scalability, resolution, and throughput required for large-scale surveillance demand more advanced tools [58] [59].

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms enable multiplexed, high-throughput genotyping of hundreds of samples and targets simultaneously, offering a powerful alternative [4] [59]. This case study objectively compares the performance of multiplex NGS approaches against Sanger sequencing for genotyping P. falciparum in field samples. We focus on experimental data quantifying performance metrics across key sequencing platforms and provide detailed methodologies to guide researchers in implementing these techniques for parasite barcoding and drug resistance surveillance.

Performance Comparison of Genotyping Platforms

Key Performance Metrics

The transition from Sanger sequencing to NGS for parasite genotyping involves trade-offs in cost, throughput, sensitivity, and resolution. Table 1 summarizes a direct quantitative comparison of Sanger sequencing with two prominent NGS platforms used for targeted amplicon sequencing (TADs): Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq [4].

Table 1: Quantitative Performance Comparison of Sanger Sequencing and NGS Platforms for Genotyping P. falciparum Drug Resistance Markers

Platform	Coverage (Reads per Amplicon)	Sensitivity for Minor Alleles	Multiplexing Capacity	Sequencing Accuracy	Cost per Sample (Relative)
Sanger Sequencing	Not Applicable (Single sequence read)	Limited (~10-30% in mixed infections) [58]	Low (Individual reactions)	Reference Standard (99.8% agreement with NGS) [4]	High (Base cost)
Ion Torrent PGM	~1,754 (Min: 15, Max: 6,456) [4]	1% at 500X coverage [4]	Up to 96 samples per run [4]	99.83% [4]	86% reduction vs. Sanger [4]
Illumina MiSeq	~28,886 (Min: 5,288, Max: 32,597) [4]	1% at 500X coverage [4]	Up to 96 samples per run [4]	99.83% [4]	86% reduction vs. Sanger [4]

The data demonstrate that both NGS platforms offer a significant (86%) cost reduction per sample compared to Sanger sequencing while maintaining exceptionally high sequencing accuracy [4]. The primary advantage of NGS is its high throughput and sensitivity, reliably detecting minor alleles in polyclonal infections at frequencies as low as 1%, a level challenging for Sanger sequencing to consistently achieve [4] [58]. Illumina MiSeq provides substantially higher and more uniform coverage per amplicon than Ion Torrent PGM, which may improve confidence in variant calling, particularly for low-parasite density samples [4].

Comparison of Modern Targeted NGS Panels

Beyond the foundational TADs approach, newer, highly multiplexed panels have been developed. Table 2 compares two such panels—a Molecular Inversion Probe (MIP) panel (DR23K) and a multiplex amplicon panel (MAD4HatTeR)—evaluated using Illumina chemistry [60].

Table 2: Performance of Modern Targeted NGS Panels at Different Parasite Densities

Assay Panel	Mean Reads/UMIs per Locus at 1000 parasites/μL	Sensitivity for SNP Detection at 1000 parasites/μL	Sensitivity for Microhaplotype Detection at 100 parasites/μL	Primary Application Strengths
MAD4HatTeR (Amplicon)	~1,153 reads [60]	100% at ≥2% WSAF [60]	100% at ≥2% WSAF [60]	Studies involving low-density samples and minority allele detection.
DR23K (MIP)	~49 UMIs [60]	100% at ≥40% WSAF [60]	<50% sensitivity [60]	Applications with high-parasite density samples or requiring broad genome coverage.

WSAF: Within-Sample Allele Frequency.

This comparison reveals that the MAD4HatTeR amplicon panel is significantly more sensitive than the DR23K MIP panel, especially at low parasite densities and for detecting minority alleles in mixed infections [60]. This makes it particularly suitable for molecular surveillance where sample parasite densities can be highly variable. The MIP panel may be more appropriate for specific applications prioritizing comprehensive genome coverage over high sensitivity for minority clones [60].

Experimental Protocols for Key Applications

Protocol 1: Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs) for Drug Resistance Markers

This protocol, adapted from a comparative study, details the steps for genotyping six key P. falciparum drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, and pfcytochrome b) [4].

• Sample Preparation and DNA Extraction: Use 20 µL of whole blood or a punch from a Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT) blood spot. Extract genomic DNA using a Chelex-100 resin protocol or commercial kits (e.g., QIAamp DNA Mini Kit). For Chelex extraction, incubate the sample in PBS-Tween, wash with PBS, and then boil in a 7% Chelex solution to lyse cells and denature proteins [60].
• Multiplex PCR Amplification: Design primers to generate amplicons covering known resistance loci. Perform a multiplex PCR reaction using a high-fidelity polymerase. The reaction mixture typically includes buffer, dNTPs, primers, polymerase, and template DNA. Cycling conditions involve an initial denaturation, followed by cycles of denaturation, annealing, and extension [4] [57].
• Library Preparation (Ion Torrent PGM): Purify the multiplex PCR product. Ligate platform-specific barcoded adapters to the amplicons for sample multiplexing. Perform emulsion PCR to amplify individual library fragments on beads. Enrich template-positive beads for sequencing [4].
• Library Preparation (Illumina MiSeq): Purify the multiplex PCR product. Use a second, limited-cycle PCR to attach dual indices and Illumina sequencing adapters. This step creates the final sequenceable library. Clean up the final library to remove unincorporated primers and reagents [4] [61].
• Sequencing and Data Analysis: Load the library onto the respective sequencer (Ion Torrent PGM or Illumina MiSeq). Following the run, demultiplex sequences by sample barcode. Align reads to a P. falciparum reference genome (e.g., 3D7 strain). Call variants (SNPs and indels) with a minimum threshold (e.g., 1% allele frequency) and a coverage depth of at least 500X for reliable minor allele detection [4].

Diagram 1: TADs Workflow for P. falciparum Drug Resistance Genotyping.

Protocol 2: Long-Amplicon Multiplex Panel for Comprehensive Resistance Surveillance

This protocol addresses the need to surveil beyond predefined polymorphism hotspots by sequencing full-length coding regions of key genes [57].

• Panel Design: Select a panel of genes associated with artemisinin and partner drug resistance (e.g., Pfk13, Pfcoronin, Pfap2μ, Pfubp1, Pfmdr1, Pfcrt). Use software like multiply to design primers that generate long amplicons (~2.5 kb) for full-gene coverage, standardizing amplicon lengths to minimize amplification bias [57].
• Optimized Multiplex PCR: Iteratively optimize primer concentrations and annealing temperatures using gel electrophoresis and sequencing validation to ensure uniform and specific amplification of all targets. Use a high-fidelity polymerase capable of amplifying long AT-rich Plasmodium templates [57].
• Library Construction and Sequencing: Purify the long-range multiplex PCR products. Prepare sequencing libraries using Illumina-compatible kits, incorporating dual indices. Sequence on an Illumina platform (e.g., MiSeq) with paired-end reads of sufficient length to cover the amplicons [57].
• Sensitivity Assessment: Validate the assay's sensitivity using mock samples with parasitemia levels ranging from 1% to 0.0001%. This panel has demonstrated a sensitivity threshold of 50 parasites/µL for dried blood spots (DBS) and 5 parasites/µL for venous blood (VB) samples [57].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of multiplex NGS for parasite genotyping relies on a set of key reagents and materials. The following toolkit outlines these essential components.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Multiplex NGS Genotyping

Item	Function	Examples / Specifications
DNA Extraction Kit	Isolation of high-quality parasite genomic DNA from complex field samples.	Chelex-100 method [60], QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN) [57].
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Accurate amplification of target regions, crucial for long amplicons and variant calling.	Roche FastStart High-Fidelity Taq Polymerase [62].
NGS Library Prep Kit	Preparation of sequencing-ready libraries from amplicons, including barcoding.	Ion Torrent Library Kit [4], Illumina Nextera XT [61], Native Barcoding Kit 96 (Oxford Nanopore) [61].
Primer Pools	Multiplexed amplification of specific genomic targets.	Custom-designed panels for drug resistance genes [4] [57] or microhaplotypes [61].
Sequenceing Flow Cells	The consumable surface where sequencing chemistry occurs.	Illumina MiSeq Reagent Kit [4], Oxford Nanopore R10.4.1 flow cell [61].
Bioinformatic Tools	Processing raw sequence data into actionable genotyping information.	Dorado (Nanopore basecalling) [61], alignment tools (e.g., BWA), variant callers (e.g., GATK).
Vinyl acetate vinyl alcohol polymer	Vinyl acetate vinyl alcohol polymer, CAS:25213-24-5, MF:C6H10O3, MW:130.14 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Aziridine;2-(chloromethyl)oxirane	Aziridine;2-(chloromethyl)oxirane|CAS 68307-89-1

The data presented in this case study unequivocally demonstrate that multiplex NGS platforms have surpassed Sanger sequencing as the tool of choice for large-scale molecular surveillance of P. falciparum. The transition is driven by the compelling combination of higher throughput, superior sensitivity for detecting minority clones in polyclonal infections, and significantly lower per-sample cost [4] [60].

The choice between NGS platforms and specific assay panels (e.g., TADs, long-amplicon, MIP) depends on the specific research or surveillance objective. For routine, high-throughput monitoring of known drug resistance markers, short-amplicon TADs on Illumina or Ion Torrent platforms offers a robust and cost-effective solution. For discovery-based surveillance aiming to identify novel mutations across full genes, long-amplicon panels are more appropriate [57]. When working with very low-density field samples, highly sensitive amplicon-based panels like MAD4HatTeR are preferable to MIP-based approaches [60].

The ongoing integration of these advanced genotyping tools into national surveillance programs is critical for tracking the spread of drug-resistant malaria and informing public health policy to effectively combat this deadly disease.

The study of gut protozoan diversity has undergone a profound transformation with the advent of DNA sequencing technologies. While Sanger sequencing long served as the gold standard for genetic analysis, its limitations in detecting mixed infections and genetic diversity within species have driven the adoption of next-generation sequencing (NGS) approaches [5]. Metabarcoding, an amplicon-based NGS method targeting taxonomic marker genes, has emerged as a powerful tool that bypasses the constraints of traditional methods, enabling comprehensive profiling of complex parasitic communities in gastrointestinal ecosystems [5].

This technological shift is particularly valuable in gut protozoology, where morphologically similar parasites can exhibit significant genetic and pathogenic differences. For instance, Entamoeba histolytica can cause life-threatening disease, while its morphological twin, Entamoeba dispar, is considered harmless [5]. Metabarcoding enables researchers to distinguish such species and gain insights into intra-species genetic diversity, colonization patterns, and mixed infections that were previously challenging to detect with Sanger sequencing alone [5].

Technical Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS Metabarcoding

Performance Characteristics

Table 1: Comparison of sequencing methodologies for parasite detection

Parameter	Sanger Sequencing	NGS Metabarcoding
Throughput	Low (single fragment per run) [63]	High (millions of reads per run) [63]
Sensitivity	15-20% [64]	<1% [64]
Reading Length	400-900 base pairs [64]	50-500 base pairs (Illumina) [64]
Error Rate	0.001% [64]	5% (Nanopore); 0.1-1% (Illumina) [64]
Variant Detection	Single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and INDELs [64]	SNVs, INDELs, and complex structures [64]
Multiplexing Capability	Limited	High [65]
Turnaround Time	3-4 days [64]	2-3 days (can be <24 hours for urgent cases) [64]
Cost Efficiency	Ideal for small projects [63]	Cost-effective for large projects [63]
Mixed Infection Detection	Limited	Excellent [5]
Data Analysis Complexity	Minimal bioinformatics required [63]	Advanced bioinformatics expertise needed [63]

Quantitative Performance Data

Table 2: Metabarcoding detection performance across studies

Study Focus	Protocol Details	Key Findings	Performance Metrics
HIV-1 Drug Resistance [66]	10 laboratories using Illumina MiSeq; thresholds 5-20%	NGS sequences at 20% threshold most similar to Sanger consensus	99.6% average identity to Sanger consensus at 20% threshold [66]
Intestinal Parasite Detection [11]	18S rDNA V9 region; Illumina iSeq 100; 11 parasite species	All 11 parasite species detected; read count variation by species	434,849 total reads; species detection rates from 0.9% (Enterobius vermicularis) to 17.2% (Clonorchis sinensis) [11]
Hospital Patient Screening [67]	18S/28S rDNA; Illumina; 360 patients in pools	Detection of Cryptosporidium parvum, Blastocystis, Entamoeba hartmanni	1.65% of 6.1 million reads mapped to parasites; primer bias observed [67]
Pipeline Comparison [68]	5 NGS HIVDR pipelines; 10 specimens	All pipelines detected AAVs at 1-100% frequencies; specificity decreased below 2%	Specificity dramatically decreased at AAV frequencies <2% [68]

Experimental Workflows in Metabarcoding

Standardized Metabarcoding Protocol

Figure 1: Metabarcoding workflow for gut protozoan detection

Detailed Methodological Considerations

Sample Preparation and DNA Extraction: The metabarcoding process begins with careful sample collection, typically from fecal matter [67]. For optimal results, samples are often enriched using methods like sucrose flotation to concentrate parasitic elements [67]. DNA extraction employs commercial kits such as the Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil, designed to handle complex biological samples [11]. The extraction process may include mechanical disruption using instruments like TissueLyser II with stainless steel beads to ensure complete cell lysis, particularly important for breaking resilient oocyst walls of parasites like Cryptosporidium [67].

PCR Amplification and Primer Selection: Amplification typically targets conservative ribosomal RNA regions, with the 18S rRNA gene being the most common target due to its presence in all non-viral organisms and utility as a potent taxonomic marker [5]. Commonly used primers include:

• 1391F/EukBR: Targeting the V9 region of 18S rDNA [11]
• 616*F/1132R: Targeting the V4-V5 region of 18S rDNA [67]

The choice of primer pairs significantly impacts detection efficacy, as different primer sets exhibit varying amplification success rates for different parasite species [67]. Optimization of annealing temperatures (typically 40-70°C) is crucial, as this parameter affects the relative abundance of output reads for each parasite [11].

Library Preparation and Sequencing: Following amplification, libraries are constructed with the addition of multiplexing indices and Illumina sequencing adapters [11]. The limited-cycle amplification (typically 8 cycles) is performed to minimize PCR artifacts while ensuring sufficient material for sequencing. Platforms such as Illumina iSeq 100 are commonly employed, generating 100-140k reads per amplicon with paired-end sequencing to enhance read quality and accuracy [67].

Bioinformatics Analysis Pipeline

Figure 2: Bioinformatic processing of metabarcoding data

The bioinformatic analysis of metabarcoding data typically utilizes pipelines such as QIIME 2 (Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology) [11] [67]. Key steps include:

• Quality Filtering and Demultiplexing: Raw sequences are demultiplexed and trimmed using tools like Cutadapt to remove adapter sequences and low-quality bases [11].

• Denoising and Dereplication: The DADA2 algorithm is commonly employed for error correction, dereplication, and amplicon sequence variant (ASV) inference, providing higher resolution than traditional OTU clustering methods [11].

• Chimera Filtering: Artificial chimeric sequences formed during PCR amplification are identified and removed to prevent false positives [11].

• Taxonomic Assignment: Processed sequences are compared against reference databases such as SILVA or customized databases derived from NCBI nucleotide collections [11] [67]. This step is crucial for accurate species identification, though challenges remain due to incomplete reference databases for some parasitic species.

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key reagents and materials for metabarcoding experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Examples/Alternatives
DNA Extraction Kits	Nucleic acid purification from complex samples	Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil [11], SevenEasy DNA Gel Extraction Kit [67]
PCR Master Mix	Amplification of target regions	KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix [11]
Universal Primers	Amplification of taxonomic marker genes	1391F/EukBR (V9 region) [11], 616*F/1132R (V4-V5 region) [67]
Library Prep Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries	Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2 kit [11]
Restriction Enzymes	Plasmid linearization (for controls)	NcoI (10 U/μL) [11]
Cloning Kits	Control material preparation	TOPcloner TA Kit [11]
Bioinformatics Tools	Data processing and analysis	QIIME 2 [11] [67], DADA2 [11], SILVA database [67]

Applications and Validation in Parasitology

Metabarcoding has demonstrated particular utility in several key applications within gut protozoology:

Comprehensive Parasite Detection: A 2024 study successfully detected 11 intestinal parasite species simultaneously using 18S rDNA V9 metabarcoding, though read counts varied significantly between species [11]. This variation was associated with differences in DNA secondary structures and amplification efficiency, highlighting the importance of optimized protocols.

Clinical Surveillance: Research from 2025 applied metabarcoding to hospital patient samples in Northeast China, identifying Cryptosporidium parvum and Blastocystis ST1 as the predominant intestinal protozoa [67]. The study demonstrated the method's feasibility for clinical surveillance while noting challenges such as primer bias and overwhelming amplification of non-target organisms.

Mixed Infection Resolution: Unlike Sanger sequencing, which typically reveals only dominant sequences, metabarcoding can delineate mixed species and subtype infections [5]. This capability is particularly valuable for understanding complex parasitic communities and their dynamics within hosts.

Methodological Comparisons: Studies have systematically compared metabarcoding with established methods, noting that while it may not replace diagnostic tests for ruling out infection, it serves as a cost-effective screening tool that provides detailed insight into gut microbiota diversity at the species and subtype level [5].

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its advantages, metabarcoding approaches face several challenges that require consideration:

Technical Biases: Primer bias remains a significant limitation, as no "one-fits-all" approach ensures equal sensitivity for all organisms [5]. Variations in primer binding efficiency and amplification bias can dramatically affect detection rates and relative abundance measurements [67]. Additionally, the copy number variability of ribosomal genes between different species can distort abundance estimates [5].

Bioinformatic Challenges: Accurate taxonomic assignment depends on comprehensive reference databases, which remain incomplete for many gut protozoa [5]. The field would benefit from expanded curated databases specifically designed for parasitic eukaryotes.

Standardization Needs: Unlike Sanger sequencing, which has established quality standards, metabarcoding protocols and analysis pipelines vary considerably between laboratories [68]. The development of standardized controls and reporting thresholds would enhance reproducibility and inter-study comparisons.

Future developments will likely focus on improved primer design, multi-locus approaches to overcome single-gene limitations, and integration with complementary molecular methods to validate findings. As these methodologies mature, metabarcoding is poised to become an increasingly valuable tool for comprehensive parasite community analysis, with applications spanning clinical diagnostics, epidemiology, and fundamental research on host-parasite interactions.

Overcoming Technical Hurdles in Parasite Barcoding

Addressing Primer Bias and Preferential Amplification in NGS

In parasitology and pathogen detection, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized our capacity to screen for multiple parasite species simultaneously through amplicon-based metabarcoding approaches [11]. This methodology typically targets conserved genomic regions, such as 16S rRNA in prokaryotes and 18S rRNA in eukaryotes, to facilitate the detection and differentiation of diverse organisms within complex samples [5]. However, the very foundation of this powerful technique—PCR amplification using specific primers—introduces a significant methodological challenge: primer bias and preferential amplification.

Primer bias occurs when primers anneal with varying efficiencies to different template sequences due to sequence mismatches, secondary structures, or varying GC content. This results in the distorted representation of species abundances in the final sequencing data, potentially leading to false negatives, underestimated diversity, or incorrect conclusions about community structure [69]. This issue is particularly problematic in parasite barcoding, where accurate representation of all species present—especially rare pathogens—is critical for diagnostic and research applications [11].

While Sanger sequencing remains a highly accurate method for validating specific gene variants, its low throughput and limitation to sequencing single DNA fragments per reaction render it impractical for comprehensive parasite community profiling [70] [71]. NGS, despite its primer bias challenges, offers the unparalleled advantage of detecting multiple parasite species concurrently, making it indispensable for modern parasitology research [5]. This guide objectively compares the performance of various NGS strategies for mitigating primer bias, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies to enhance their parasite barcoding workflows.

Experimental Evidence: Documenting Amplification Bias

Quantification of Primer Bias in Parasite Detection

A 2024 study systematically investigated amplification bias in parasite detection by cloning the 18S rDNA V9 region of 11 intestinal parasite species into plasmids [11]. Researchers created an equimolar pool of these plasmids and performed amplicon NGS on the Illumina iSeq 100 platform. Despite identical starting concentrations, significant variation in output read counts was observed across species, clearly demonstrating preferential amplification.

Table 1: Documented Primer Bias in 18S rDNA Amplification of Parasites

Parasite Species	Read Count Percentage (%)
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
Enterobius vermicularis	0.9

The research team identified that DNA secondary structures in the target region showed a negative association with output read abundance [11]. Furthermore, variations in amplicon PCR annealing temperature significantly affected the relative abundance of reads for each parasite, indicating that thermal cycling parameters can exacerbate or mitigate primer bias effects.

Mock Community Studies Reveal Platform-Specific Biases

Another approach to quantifying bias involves using mock microbial communities with known compositions. A 2025 study analyzed eight mock communities and 12 commercial products across multiple NGS platforms and various 16S rRNA regions [69]. The research revealed platform- and region-specific biases, with particular species consistently over- or under-represented depending on the experimental conditions.

This study developed a reference-based bias correction model that used PCR efficiencies from reference communities to correct biased ratios across different amplification regions and platforms [69]. Notably, the research found that partial references containing approximately 40% of the species achieved correction results comparable to complete references, offering a more practical approach for bias correction in diagnostic settings.

Experimental Protocols for Bias Mitigation

Reference-Based Bias Correction Model

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Bias Studies

Reagent/Equipment	Function in Bias Assessment/Mitigation
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	Provides absolute quantification for establishing ground truth in mock communities
Mock Community Standards	Controlled samples with known composition to quantify bias
Restriction Enzymes (e.g., NcoI)	Linearizes circular plasmids to minimize steric hindrance during amplification
High-Fidelity Polymerases	Reduces PCR-induced errors during library preparation
Plasmid Cloning Systems	Enables controlled study of amplification efficiency using cloned target regions

Protocol: Reference-Based Bias Correction for Parasite Metabarcoding

• Sample Preparation and Controls:

  • Spike samples with known quantities of control parasites or utilize mock communities with defined compositions [69].
  • Use droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) with specific primer-probe assays for accurate absolute quantification of initial parasite ratios [69].

• Multi-Platform Sequencing:

  • Process samples across different NGS platforms (e.g., Illumina, Oxford Nanopore) and target different variable regions of ribosomal genes [69].
  • Include both simplex and duplex sequencing approaches where applicable (e.g., for Oxford Nanopore platforms) [72].

• Bias Quantification:

  • Calculate PCR efficiency for each target parasite by comparing input ratios (from ddPCR) to output read proportions [69].
  • Identify consistently over- and under-represented targets across platforms and regions.

• Model Application:

  • Develop a correction factor matrix based on observed biases in reference samples.
  • Apply these correction factors to experimental samples sequenced under similar conditions.
  • Validate corrected abundances with a subset of samples using targeted approaches (e.g., qPCR).

This model has demonstrated effectiveness in correcting biases across different sequencing platforms, 16S rRNA regions, and polymerases, significantly improving accuracy in microbial community analyses [69].

Thermal-Bias PCR Protocol

A 2025 study introduced "thermal-bias PCR" to address limitations of degenerate primers in library preparation [73]. This protocol uses only two non-degenerate primers in a single reaction by exploiting large differences in annealing temperatures.

Diagram 1: Thermal-bias PCR workflow for balanced amplification.

Protocol: Thermal-Bias PCR for Reduced Amplification Bias

• Primer Design:

  • Design non-degenerate primers targeting conserved regions flanking the variable region of interest.
  • Avoid traditional degenerate primer pools that reduce overall reaction efficiency [73].

• Reaction Setup:

  • Prepare PCR mix with standard components but utilizing a specialized thermal cycling profile.
  • Use high-fidelity polymerase enzymes to minimize incorporation errors.

• Thermal Cycling Parameters:

  • Initial Denaturation: 95°C for 5 minutes
  • Amplification Cycles (30-35 cycles):
    • Denaturation: 98°C for 30 seconds
    • Low-Temperature Annealing: 40-50°C for 30 seconds (enables primer binding to mismatched templates)
    • High-Temperature Extension: 72°C for 30 seconds (ensures specific extension)
  • Final Extension: 72°C for 5 minutes

This protocol allows for stable amplification of targets containing substantial mismatches in their primer-binding sites while maintaining proportional representation of community members [73]. Experimental validation showed that non-degenerate primers produced amplicons significantly better than their degenerate counterparts when amplifying either consensus or non-consensus targets.

Comparative Performance of NGS Platforms for Parasite Barcoding

Platform-Specific Strengths and Limitations

Table 3: NGS Platform Comparison for Parasite Barcoding Applications

Platform	Read Length	Key Advantage for Parasite Barcoding	Limitation Regarding Primer Bias
Illumina	36-300 bp [22]	High accuracy (~99.9%) [72]	Short reads complicate differentiation of closely related species
Oxford Nanopore	Average 10,000-30,000 bp [22]	Can sequence entire rRNA operons, reducing primer dependency	Higher error rates (particularly in homopolymers) may affect species calling [22]
PacBio HiFi	10,000-25,000 bp [72]	High accuracy long reads (>99.9%) [72]	Higher cost per sample compared to short-read platforms
Ion Torrent	200-400 bp [22]	Rapid turnaround time	Higher error rates in homopolymeric regions [22]

Impact of Primer Bias Across Platforms

Different NGS platforms exhibit varying susceptibilities to primer bias effects. Short-read platforms like Illumina are particularly vulnerable to primer binding site mismatches due to their reliance on relatively short amplicons [70]. Even minor sequence variations in primer binding sites can significantly impact amplification efficiency, potentially excluding entire parasite taxa from detection [11].

Long-read platforms like Oxford Nanopore and PacBio offer advantages for reducing primer bias through their capacity to sequence longer fragments, potentially spanning multiple variable regions [72]. This provides more sequence information for species identification and can compensate for biases affecting any single region. However, these platforms traditionally had higher error rates, though recent improvements like Oxford Nanopore's Q30 Duplex sequencing and PacBio's HiFi reads have substantially improved accuracy [72].

Integrated Strategies for Comprehensive Parasite Detection

Multi-Locus Barcoding Approach

Given the inherent limitations of single-region barcoding, an integrated approach targeting multiple genetic regions provides the most comprehensive solution for parasite detection.

Diagram 2: Multi-locus approach for comprehensive parasite barcoding.

Protocol Validation with Sanger Sequencing

While NGS provides comprehensive screening capability, Sanger sequencing remains valuable for method validation and specific diagnostic applications:

• Targeted Validation:

  • Use Sanger sequencing to confirm ambiguous or novel variants detected by NGS [70].
  • Apply to a subset of samples to verify NGS-based species calls.

• Primer Validation:

  • Test new primer sets using Sanger sequencing before implementing in NGS workflows.
  • Verify amplification of target regions across diverse parasite species.

• Low-Complexity Samples:

  • For samples with suspected low parasite diversity, Sanger sequencing may provide a cost-effective alternative to NGS [71].

This integrated approach leverages the strengths of both technologies: the comprehensive screening capability of NGS and the precision of Sanger sequencing for validation.

Primer bias and preferential amplification remain significant challenges in NGS-based parasite barcoding, potentially compromising the accuracy of community profiles and diagnostic results. However, through strategic experimental design—incorporating mock communities, applying bias correction models, utilizing modified PCR protocols like thermal-bias PCR, and adopting multi-locus sequencing approaches—researchers can substantially mitigate these effects.

The choice between Sanger sequencing and NGS, as well as among different NGS platforms, should be guided by the specific research question, required throughput, and necessary detection sensitivity. For comprehensive parasite community analysis, NGS approaches with appropriate bias control measures offer unparalleled capability, while Sanger sequencing maintains its value for targeted applications and validation.

As NGS technologies continue to evolve, with improvements in read length, accuracy, and accessibility, the parasitology research community will benefit from continuing to develop and refine methods that address the fundamental challenge of amplification bias, thereby enhancing the reliability of molecular parasite detection and characterization.

Strategies for Enriching Parasite DNA and Suppressing Host Background

In parasite genomics research, obtaining high-quality sequence data is often complicated by the presence of abundant host DNA in clinical samples. The ratio of host to parasite DNA can be overwhelmingly skewed toward the host, making the detection and genetic characterization of parasites challenging. Effective strategies to enrich parasite DNA and suppress host background are therefore critical for accurate genomic studies, whether using traditional Sanger sequencing or modern next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms [8] [11].

This challenge is particularly relevant in the context of comparing Sanger sequencing and NGS for parasite barcoding research. While Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard for many applications, its limitation in detecting mixed infections and low-abundance parasites has driven the adoption of NGS techniques that offer deeper sequencing coverage and superior sensitivity for minor genetic variants [4] [74] [10]. The selection of appropriate enrichment and suppression methods directly impacts the success of both approaches, influencing everything from diagnostic accuracy to research efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

This guide objectively compares current methodologies for parasite DNA enrichment and host background suppression, providing experimental data and protocols to inform researchers' decisions based on their specific project requirements, sample types, and available resources.

Host DNA Suppression Methodologies

Blocking Primer Strategies

Sequence-Specific Blocking Primers: These oligonucleotides are designed to bind specifically to host DNA sequences during PCR amplification, preventing their amplification through 3'-end modifications that terminate polymerase extension. A recent innovation utilizes a C3 spacer modification at the 3'-end of the primer (3SpC3_Hs1829R), which effectively blocks polymerase elongation when the primer binds to host 18S rDNA targets [8].

Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) Clamps: PNA oligomers represent a more advanced blocking technology. These synthetic polymers hybridize to complementary host DNA sequences with higher affinity and specificity than traditional primers. A PNA clamp designed against human 18S rDNA (PNA_Hs733F) has demonstrated efficacy in inhibiting host DNA amplification by forming stable complexes that block polymerase progression. The non-ionic backbone of PNA prevents it from acting as a primer itself, making it particularly effective for host suppression [8].

Table 1: Comparison of Host DNA Suppression Methods

Method	Mechanism	Advantages	Limitations	Effectiveness
C3-Modified Blocking Primers	Binds host DNA and terminates polymerase extension via 3' C3 spacer	Cost-effective, easy to design and implement	May require optimization for different host species	Reduces host amplification by >50% in blood samples [8]
PNA Clamps	High-affinity synthetic binders that block polymerase elongation	Superior specificity and binding affinity, not extended by polymerase	Higher cost, specialized synthesis required	Near-complete suppression of host 18S rDNA at optimal concentrations [8]
Restriction Enzyme Digestion	Specifically cleaves host DNA before amplification	Can be applied to pre-amplification DNA	Risk of cutting target parasite DNA if recognition sites overlap	Varies by host-parasite system; requires validation [8]
Primer Pooling	Combination of multiple blocking strategies	Synergistic effect, more comprehensive coverage	Increased complexity and cost	Most effective approach for diverse sample types [8]

Workflow for Implementing Host DNA Suppression

The following diagram illustrates a comprehensive workflow for processing samples with host DNA suppression methods:

Sample Processing with Host DNA Suppression Workflow

Parasite DNA Enrichment Approaches

Targeted Amplification Strategies

18S Ribosomal DNA Barcoding: The 18S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) gene serves as an excellent target for parasite DNA enrichment due to its multicopy nature and conserved regions flanking variable domains. While the V9 region has been traditionally used for barcoding, expanding the target to the V4-V9 region significantly improves species identification accuracy, especially on error-prone sequencing platforms like Oxford Nanopore. The longer barcode (approximately 1,200 bp) provides more phylogenetic information, reducing misassignment rates from 1.7% to near 0% for Plasmodium species identification [8].

Multiplex PCR Approaches: For studies focusing on specific parasite taxa, multiplex PCR protocols can simultaneously target multiple species in a single reaction. This approach has proven particularly valuable for container-breeding Aedes mosquito surveillance, where a single multiplex PCR can identify Aedes albopictus, Aedes japonicus, Aedes koreicus, and Aedes geniculatus with higher sensitivity than standard DNA barcoding (1,990/2,271 samples vs. 1,722/2,271 samples successfully identified). This method also enables detection of mixed infections, which are frequently missed by Sanger sequencing alone [10].

Hybrid Capture and Physical Enrichment Methods

Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs): TADs enriches specific genomic regions of interest through PCR amplification before sequencing. This method has demonstrated exceptional sensitivity for detecting minority variants in Plasmodium falciparum, identifying minor alleles down to 1% frequency with 500x coverage. Both Illumina MiSeq and Ion Torrent PGM platforms successfully achieved this sensitivity level, though Illumina provided higher coverage (28,886 reads per amplicon vs. 1,754 for Ion Torrent) [4].

Linearization of Circular Templates: For plasmid-based enrichment strategies, linearization using restriction enzymes (e.g., NcoI) minimizes steric hindrance and improves amplification efficiency of target sequences. This approach has shown utility in metabarcoding studies where cloned reference sequences are used to validate detection limits [11].

Comparative Performance in Sequencing Platforms

Platform-Specific Considerations

The effectiveness of parasite DNA enrichment strategies varies significantly across sequencing platforms, with important implications for experimental design and resource allocation.

Illumina Platforms: Illumina sequencing systems, particularly MiSeq and iSeq 100, offer high accuracy (Q30 scores >94%) and are well-suited for metabarcoding applications. In studies detecting 11 intestinal parasite species via 18S rDNA V9 metabarcoding, Illumina platforms generated 434,849 reads with balanced representation across species, though some bias was observed (Clonorchis sinensis: 17.2%; Entamoeba histolytica: 16.7%; Enterobius vermicularis: 0.9%) [11]. This platform shows minimal cross-talk between samples in multiplexed runs and consistently high success rates for parasite identification.

Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT): Portable Nanopore sequencers enable field-deployable parasite detection but require longer barcodes (V4-V9 region) for accurate species identification due to higher error rates. The recently developed R10 flow cells with Q20+ chemistry have significantly improved performance, achieving the highest success rates for sample sequencing in comparative studies. ONT protocols also offer the fastest library preparation times, making them valuable for rapid diagnostic applications [8] [23].

Ion Torrent PGM: This semiconductor-based platform provides a middle ground in terms of cost and throughput. In comparative studies of Plasmodium drug resistance markers, Ion Torrent generated 1.96-2.83 million aligned reads per run with 98.93-99.24% alignment rates to reference genomes. While coverage per amplicon was lower than Illumina (1,754 vs. 28,886 reads), variant calling accuracy was comparable between platforms [4].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The economic considerations of parasite DNA enrichment and sequencing strategies become increasingly important as sample numbers grow. Third-generation sequencing platforms become more cost-effective than Sanger sequencing when studies require barcoding of more than 61 (Flongle), 183 (MinION), or 356 (PacBio) samples. For targeted NGS approaches, multiplexing up to 96 samples per run reduces costs by approximately 86% compared to conventional Sanger sequencing [4] [23].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Sequencing Platforms with Enrichment Methods

Platform	Read Depth per Amplicon	Variant Detection Sensitivity	Multiplexing Capacity	Best Suited Enrichment Method
Sanger Sequencing	N/A (single sequence)	Limited for mixed infections	Low (individual reactions)	Specific PCR, no host suppression [10]
Illumina MiSeq	28,886 reads	1% minor allele frequency at 500x coverage	96 samples per run	TADs, 18S rDNA metabarcoding [4] [11]
Ion Torrent PGM	1,754 reads	1% minor allele frequency at 500x coverage	96 samples per run	TADs, multiplex PCR [4] [74]
Oxford Nanopore	Variable (platform-dependent)	Requires longer barcodes for accuracy	24-96 samples (flow cell dependent)	V4-V9 18S rDNA with host blocking [8] [23]
Pacific Biosciences	Variable (long reads)	High for structural variants	192-384 samples per SMRT cell	Full-length 18S rDNA amplification [23]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Detailed Protocol: 18S rDNA Metabarcoding with Host Suppression

Sample Preparation and DNA Extraction:

• Begin with clinical samples (blood, stool, or tissue) preserved in ethanol or fresh-frozen.
• Extract total DNA using standardized kits (Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil or equivalent), ensuring complete cell lysis.
• Quantify DNA using fluorometric methods (e.g., Quantus Fluorometer) to ensure adequate input material [11].

Host DNA Suppression:

• Prepare PCR reaction mix including:
  • 3 µL template DNA (20 ng/µL)
  • 10 µL KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix
  • 1 µL each of forward and reverse primers (1391F and EukBR with adaptors)
  • 1 µL C3-modified blocking primer (10 µM)
  • 1 µL PNA clamp (10 µM)
• Thermal cycling conditions:
  • Initial denaturation: 95°C for 5 minutes
  • 30 cycles of: 98°C for 30s, 55°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s
  • Final extension: 72°C for 5 minutes [8] [11]

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Perform limited-cycle (8 cycles) amplification to add multiplexing indices and Illumina sequencing adapters.
• Pool amplified products in equimolar ratios based on fluorometric quantification.
• Sequence on Illumina iSeq 100 or MiSeq platform using appropriate reagent kits [11].

Mechanism of Host DNA Suppression

The following diagram details the molecular mechanism of PNA clamp-mediated host DNA suppression:

PNA-Mediated Host DNA Suppression Mechanism

Protocol Validation and Quality Control

Validation with Artificial Mixtures:

• Create controlled mixtures of parasite and host DNA at known ratios (1:99 to 50:50)
• Include reference strains (e.g., Plasmodium falciparum 3D7 and K1) for quantitative assessment
• Process artificial mixtures alongside clinical samples to validate sensitivity thresholds [4]

Quality Metrics:

• For Sanger sequencing: Assess chromatogram quality scores (QV ≥ 20 for reliable base calls), continuous read length (CRL > 500 bases for high-quality data), and signal intensity (>1,000 relative fluorescence units) [75]
• For NGS data: Evaluate coverage uniformity, on-target rates, and minor allele detection limits
• Establish thresholds for minimum reads per amplicon (≥500x coverage for 1% sensitivity) [4]

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Parasite DNA Enrichment

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Considerations
Host Suppression Oligos	C3-modified blocking primers, PNA clamps	Selective inhibition of host DNA amplification during PCR	PNA offers superior specificity but at higher cost [8]
Universal Primers	1391F, EukBR, F566, 1776R	Amplification of target barcode regions across parasite taxa	V4-V9 region provides better resolution than V9 alone [8] [11]
DNA Extraction Kits	Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil, innuPREP DNA Mini Kit	Efficient lysis and DNA recovery from diverse sample types	Soil kits often more effective for tough parasite structures [10] [11]
High-Fidelity PCR Mixes	KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix	Accurate amplification with minimal errors for sequencing	Essential for long amplicons and complex templates [11]
Restriction Enzymes	NcoI, other site-specific nucleases	Linearization of circular templates to improve amplification	Reduces steric hindrance in plasmid-based controls [11]
Library Prep Kits	Illumina iSeq 100 i1 Reagent v2, ONT Ligation Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries from enriched DNA	Platform-specific optimization required [11]
3-Propylaniline	3-Propylaniline, CAS:2524-81-4, MF:C9H13N, MW:135.21 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Thiolane-2,5-dione	Thiolane-2,5-dione, CAS:3194-60-3, MF:C4H4O2S, MW:116.14 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The strategic enrichment of parasite DNA and suppression of host background represents a critical frontier in parasitology research, directly impacting the effectiveness of both Sanger sequencing and NGS approaches. As the experimental data demonstrates, method selection must align with research objectives: while simple PCR followed by Sanger sequencing suffices for single-species detection in high-parasite-load samples, complex mixed infections and low-abundance parasites require the sensitivity and multiplexing capabilities of NGS with advanced host suppression techniques.

The continuing evolution of blocking technologies, particularly PNA clamps and modified oligonucleotides, coupled with platform-specific optimization of barcoding regions, enables researchers to extract high-fidelity parasite genetic information from even the most challenging clinical samples. By implementing these validated protocols and selecting appropriate reagents from the research toolkit, scientists can significantly enhance the quality and reliability of their parasite barcoding studies, ultimately advancing both basic research and diagnostic applications in parasitology.

Accurately identifying and characterizing parasitic infections is a cornerstone of effective disease control, treatment, and eradication efforts. However, two common biological scenarios significantly complicate this task: polyclonal infections, where a host is infected by multiple genetically distinct strains of a single parasite species, and low parasitemia, characterized by an extremely low number of parasites in the host's bloodstream. Traditional molecular methods, notably Sanger sequencing, often struggle in these contexts. Sanger sequencing, the long-standing gold standard, functions optimally for sequencing single, pure PCR products from monoclonal infections [21]. When faced with a polyclonal infection, the sequencing chromatogram can display overlapping signals at positions where the strains differ, making the sequence data unreadable and preventing the identification of individual clones [10]. Similarly, in cases of low parasitemia, the limited starting genetic material can lead to amplification failure or sequences of insufficient quality for reliable analysis [76].

These limitations have driven the adoption of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) for parasite barcoding. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of Sanger sequencing and NGS technologies, focusing on their performance in resolving the complexities of polyclonal infections and detecting parasites in low-parasitemia samples.

Technology Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. Next-Generation Sequencing

The core difference between these technologies lies in their underlying methodology. Sanger sequencing is a "chain-termination" method that generates a single, long contiguous read per reaction [21]. In contrast, NGS (or massively parallel sequencing) simultaneously sequences millions to billions of DNA fragments, producing vast quantities of short reads [21]. This fundamental distinction dictates their respective applications in parasitology.

Table 1: Fundamental Differences Between Sanger Sequencing and NGS

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Fundamental Method	Chain termination with ddNTPs	Massively parallel sequencing (e.g., Sequencing by Synthesis) [21]
Throughput	Low to medium; one sequence per reaction	Extremely high; millions to billions of reads per run [21]
Read Length	Long (500–1000 bp), contiguous reads [21]	Short (50-300 bp for short-read platforms); long reads (thousands of bases) with third-generation tech [72]
Primary Parasitology Application	Sequencing single-gene targets from monoclonal infections, variant confirmation [21]	Whole-genome sequencing, targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq), detection of polyclonal infections, and minority variants [77] [61]
Cost Structure	High cost per base, low cost per run (for small projects) [21]	Low cost per base, high capital and reagent cost per run [21]

Performance Comparison in Complex Samples

Detection of Polyclonal Infections and Minority Clones

The ability to resolve polyclonal infections is a key differentiator. Sanger sequencing is fundamentally limited in this regard, as it cannot deconvolute mixed signals from different strains [10]. NGS, however, excels by sequencing individual DNA molecules from a sample.

A definitive study on mosquito surveillance highlights this advantage. Researchers compared a multiplex PCR protocol (an NGS-based approach) against DNA barcoding via Sanger sequencing for identifying Aedes species eggs from ovitraps. The multiplex PCR identified species in 1990 out of 2271 samples, while Sanger sequencing was only successful for 1722 samples. Crucially, the multiplex PCR detected a mixture of different species in 47 samples, a finding that Sanger sequencing completely missed [10]. This demonstrates NGS's superior capability for identifying complex, multi-species or multi-strain compositions.

In malaria research, this sensitivity is critical for distinguishing recrudescence (treatment failure) from new infections in clinical trials. A nanopore AmpSeq (amplicon sequencing) assay targeting six microhaplotype loci demonstrated high sensitivity in detecting minority clones at frequencies as low as 1:100:100:100 in mixtures of four P. falciparum laboratory strains. The assay showed high reproducibility (intra-assay: 98%; inter-assay: 97%) and specificity, with false-positive haplotypes occurring in less than 0.01% of cases [61]. This precision is unattainable with Sanger sequencing.

Table 2: Experimental Data on Polyclonal Infection Detection

Experiment Description	Technology	Key Performance Metric	Result
Identification of container-breeding Aedes species [10]	Multiplex PCR/NGS	Samples with species mixture detected	47 samples
	Sanger Sequencing	Samples with species mixture detected	0 samples
Detection of minority clones in P. falciparum strain mixtures [61]	Nanopore AmpSeq	Sensitivity for minority clones	1:100:100:100 ratio
		Specificity (false-positive haplotypes)	< 0.01%
Genotyping P. falciparum in clinical trial samples [61]	Nanopore AmpSeq	Reproducibility (intra-assay)	98%
		Reproducibility (inter-assay)	97%

Performance in Low Parasitemia and Challenging Samples

Low parasite density poses a significant challenge for any molecular technique due to the scarcity of target DNA. NGS protocols, especially those incorporating targeted amplification and advanced bioinformatics, demonstrate a clear advantage in these scenarios.

In a study of Plasmodium vivax from sub-Saharan Africa, researchers faced the challenge of obtaining high-quality sequences from Duffy-negative individuals, which typically present with very low parasitemia. They employed selective whole-genome amplification (sWGA) to preferentially amplify parasite DNA before sequencing. While this was successful for some samples, the study noted that genome sequences from 18 homozygous Duffy-negative patients could not be exploited due to insufficient parasitemia, highlighting that even NGS has its limits with extremely low biomass [76]. Nonetheless, the use of sWGA demonstrates a specialized NGS-compatible workflow designed to push the boundaries of detection.

Similarly, in bacterial identification, a study found that Sanger sequencing failed to identify one sample (QCMD6) that contained two bacteria, Acinetobacter and Klebsiella. However, MiSeq (an Illumina NGS platform) with a small nano-flow cell correctly identified all samples, including the polybacterial one that Sanger missed. This shows NGS's utility not just for parasites, but for complex polymicrobial infections in general [78].

Experimental Protocols for NGS-Based Parasite Barcoding

Protocol 1: Multiplexed Nanopore Amplicon Sequencing forPlasmodium falciparum

This protocol is designed for rapid genotyping to distinguish recrudescence from new infections in antimalarial drug trials [61].

• DNA Extraction: Extract genomic DNA from patient whole blood samples (e.g., from dried blood spots using the Tween-Chelex method [77]).
• Multiplex PCR Amplification:
  • Targets: A panel of six polymorphic microhaplotype loci (e.g., ama1, celtos, cpmp, cpp, csp, and surfin1.1).
  • Primers: Use previously published primer sequences with tailed adapters for sequencing.
  • Reaction: Optimize primer pool concentrations and use a robust master mix (e.g., KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix) to ensure uniform amplification across all targets. Thermocycling conditions typically involve an initial denaturation (95°C for 5 min), followed by 30-35 cycles of denaturation, annealing (55-60°C), and extension.
• Library Preparation: Prepare the sequencing library using a kit such as the Native Barcoding Kit 96 V14 (SQK-NBD114.96) from Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT). This step involves barcoding individual samples to allow for multiplexing.
• Sequencing: Load the library onto a MinION Mk1C platform with a R10.4.1 flow cell and run for a target depth of approximately 150,000 reads per sample.
• Bioinformatics Analysis:
  • Basecalling & Demultiplexing: Use Dorado for simplex basecalling and demultiplexing with a minimum Q-score threshold (e.g., 20 for >99% accuracy).
  • Haplotype Inference: Apply a custom workflow to infer haplotypes from polyclonal infections, using rigorous cutoff criteria for detecting minority clones.

NGS Amplicon Sequencing Workflow

Protocol 2: 18S rRNA Metabarcoding for Intestinal Parasites

This protocol uses a metabarcoding approach to screen a single sample for multiple parasite species simultaneously [11].

• DNA Extraction: Use a commercial kit (e.g., Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil) to extract DNA from parasite specimens or patient samples.
• PCR Amplification:
  • Target: The V9 hypervariable region of the 18S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene.
  • Primers: Use universal eukaryotic primers 1391F and EukBR with overhang adapters for Illumina sequencing.
  • Reaction: Use a high-fidelity polymerase. Thermocycling: 95°C for 5 min; 30 cycles of 98°C for 30s, 55°C for 30s, 72°C for 30s; final extension 72°C for 5 min.
• Indexing PCR: Perform a limited-cycle PCR (e.g., 8 cycles) to add dual indices and full Illumina sequencing adapters.
• Sequencing: Pool the purified amplicons and sequence on an Illumina iSeq 100 system.
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Processing: Use QIIME 2. Denoise reads with DADA2 to resolve amplicon sequence variants (ASVs).
  • Taxonomic Assignment: Classify ASVs against a custom-curated database (e.g., derived from the NCBI nucleotide database) containing 18S rRNA sequences of parasites and other eukaryotes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Parasite Barcoding Experiments

Item	Function/Application	Example Products/Catalogs
DNA Extraction Kit	Isolation of high-quality genomic DNA from complex samples (blood, tissue).	Fast DNA SPIN Kit for Soil [11], innuPREP DNA Mini Kit [10]
High-Fidelity PCR Master Mix	Accurate amplification of target loci for sequencing, crucial for minority variant detection.	KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix [11]
Microhaplotype Primer Panels	Targeted amplification of highly polymorphic loci for high-resolution genotyping.	Custom panels for ama1, celtos, cpmp, etc. [61]
Universal rRNA Primers	Broad-range amplification for metabarcoding and community analysis.	1391F / EukBR for 18S V9 region [11]
Sequencing Kit (Nanopore)	Library preparation for multiplexed, real-time long-read sequencing.	Native Barcoding Kit 96 V14 (SQK-NBD114.96) [61]
Sequencing Platform	Instrumentation for generating NGS data.	Illumina iSeq 100 [11], MiniON Mk1C [61]
Bioinformatics Tools	Data processing, variant calling, and haplotype inference.	QIIME 2 [11], Dorado basecaller [61], DADA2 [11]

The choice between Sanger sequencing and NGS for parasite barcoding is unequivocally dictated by sample complexity. For simple, monoclonal infections with high parasite density, Sanger sequencing remains a cost-effective and reliable tool [21]. However, for the challenges posed by polyclonal infections and low parasitemia, NGS is the demonstrably superior technology. The experimental data confirms that NGS provides the necessary sensitivity, specificity, and high-throughput capacity to detect minority clones, resolve complex strain mixtures, and generate reliable data from samples with minimal genetic material [10] [61]. As the field of parasitology moves towards more precise surveillance and diagnostics, NGS has become an indispensable technology for unraveling the complexities of parasitic diseases.

The accurate characterization of genetic sequences is a cornerstone of modern biological research, from parasite barcoding to drug development. As sequencing technologies have evolved from the gold standard of Sanger sequencing to the high-throughput capabilities of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) platforms like Illumina and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), researchers are presented with a complex landscape of error profiles, sensitivities, and operational considerations. This guide provides an objective comparison of the accuracy and performance of these three dominant sequencing platforms, contextualized within parasite research and supported by experimental data, to inform scientists and research professionals in their experimental design.

Platform Comparison at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core technical specifications and performance metrics of Sanger, Illumina, and Oxford Nanopore sequencing platforms, highlighting key differences in their accuracy and typical use cases.

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics of Major Sequencing Platforms

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Illumina (Short-Read NGS)	Oxford Nanopore (Long-Read NGS)
Sequencing Method	Dideoxy chain termination	Fluorescent reversible terminators	Nanopore electrical signal detection
Single-Read Accuracy	>99% [64]	>99% [64]	>99% (with latest base-callers) [64]
Typical Read Length	400–900 base pairs [64]	50–500 base pairs [64]	Up to a megabase (millions of bases) [64]
Error Rate	~0.001% [64]	~0.1–1% [64]	~5% (areas of ongoing improvement) [64] [79]
Primary Error Type	Low, random	Substitution errors	Insertion-Deletion (Indel) errors [79]
Variant Detection Sensitivity	15–20% [64]	As low as 1% [4] [64]	<1% [64]
Ideal Application	Single gene or variant confirmation	High-throughput variant detection, microbiome profiling (genus-level)	Long-read assembly, structural variant detection, real-time sequencing

Experimental Evidence in Pathogen Research

Comparative studies directly assessing these platforms provide critical, data-driven insights for selecting the appropriate technology.

Detection of Antimalarial Drug Resistance Markers

A 2022 study compared Illumina MiSeq and Ion Torrent PGM (a semiconductor-based NGS platform) for typing Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance genes, using Sanger sequencing as the reference [4].

• Sensitivity for Minor Variants: Both NGS platforms could detect a minor allele frequency down to 1% in artificially mixed infections, a level of sensitivity far beyond the capability of Sanger sequencing [4].
• Concordance with Sanger: Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) calls from both Illumina and Ion Torrent platforms were in complete agreement with Sanger sequencing results, validating the high accuracy of NGS for calling dominant variants [4].
• Coverage Depth: The Illumina MiSeq platform provided a significantly higher average read depth per amplicon (28,886 reads) compared to the Ion Torrent PGM (1,754 reads), which can improve confidence in variant calling [4].

Table 2: Performance Summary from Pfalciparum Drug Resistance Marker Study [4]

Metric	Ion Torrent PGM	Illumina MiSeq
Average Coverage (Reads per Amplicon)	1,754	28,886
Lowest Minor Allele Detected	1%	1%
Concordance with Sanger	100%	100%
Multiplexing Capacity	96 samples per run	96 samples per run

Taxonomic Resolution in Microbiome Studies

The choice of platform also impacts the resolution of community profiling, such as in microbiome studies relevant to parasite ecology. A 2025 study comparing Illumina and ONT for 16S rRNA profiling of respiratory microbiota found:

• Species-Level Resolution: ONT, which sequences the full-length 16S rRNA gene (~1,500 bp), classified 76% of sequences to the species level. In contrast, Illumina, which sequences shorter hypervariable regions (~300-400 bp), classified only 47% of sequences to the species level [80] [79].
• Error Profile Impact: Despite ONT's higher raw error rate, the long-read data provides more taxonomic information, leading to higher resolution. However, the study noted that many species-level classifications were labeled as "uncultured_bacterium," indicating limitations in reference databases as well [80].

Experimental Protocols for Platform Assessment

The following workflow generalizes the key experimental steps used in the comparative studies cited, providing a template for validating sequencing platforms in a research context.

Diagram 1: Sequencing Platform Comparison Workflow

Detailed Methodological Steps

• Sample Collection & Nucleic Acid Extraction: The process begins with appropriate sample collection, such as patient whole blood or mosquito eggs from ovitraps [4] [10]. High-quality genomic DNA is then extracted using commercial kits (e.g., DNeasy PowerSoil Kit, innuPREP DNA Mini Kit) to ensure purity and integrity, which is critical for all downstream steps [80] [10].

• PCR Amplification & Library Preparation:

  • For Sanger Sequencing: Specific primers are designed to amplify the target region. The PCR product is then purified. The success of this step is highly dependent on primer design, template quality, and reaction condition optimization [9].
  • For Illumina NGS: Following a protocol like the "16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation," target genes (e.g., V3-V4 of 16S rRNA) are amplified with tailed primers. Index barcodes are added via a second PCR to allow for sample multiplexing [80] [79].
  • For Nanopore NGS: For 16S profiling, the full-length gene is amplified using primers like 27F/1492R, which are pre-barcoded using a kit (e.g., ONT 16S Barcoding Kit). The amplified DNA is then prepared into a sequencing library with adapters [80] [79].

• Sequencing Run & Data Analysis:

  • Sanger: The purified PCR product is sequenced on a capillary electrophoresis instrument. The output is a chromatogram that is analyzed for variants.
  • Illumina: The pooled library is loaded onto a flow cell for cluster generation and sequenced on an instrument like the MiSeq or NextSeq. The resulting short reads are processed through pipelines like nf-core/ampliseq or DADA2 for quality filtering, denoising, and generating Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) [80] [79].
  • Nanopore: The library is loaded onto a flow cell (e.g., MinION). Sequencing is real-time, and data is basecalled live using software like MinKNOW and Dorado. Due to a higher innate error rate, specific pipelines like EPI2ME Labs 16S Workflow or Spaghetti are used, often employing Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU) clustering rather than denoising [80] [79].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key reagents and kits used in the experimental protocols cited, which are essential for ensuring the accuracy and reproducibility of sequencing results.

Table 3: Key Reagents and Kits for Sequencing Workflows

Reagent / Kit	Function in Workflow	Example Use-Case
DNeasy PowerSoil Kit (Qiagen)	DNA extraction from complex samples like feces, soil, or insect specimens.	Microbial DNA extraction from rabbit gut microbiota samples [80].
innuPREP DNA Mini Kit	Purification of high-quality genomic DNA from tissues or cells.	DNA extraction from Plasmodium falciparum-infected blood samples [4].
QIAseq 16S/ITS Region Panel (Qiagen)	Library preparation for Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA hypervariable regions.	Targeting the V3-V4 region for respiratory microbiome analysis [79].
ONT 16S Barcoding Kit	Amplification and barcoding of the full-length 16S rRNA gene for Nanopore sequencing.	Full-length 16S sequencing of respiratory samples on MinION [79].
KAPA HiFi HotStart Polymerase	High-fidelity PCR amplification for NGS library construction.	Accurate amplification of full-length 16S rRNA gene for PacBio sequencing [80].

The "error landscape" reveals that there is no single superior platform; rather, the choice is a trade-off dependent on the specific research question.

• Sanger sequencing remains the simplest and most cost-effective method for validating individual variants or sequencing a small number of genes, but its low sensitivity prevents minor variant detection.
• Illumina NGS offers an excellent balance of high accuracy and throughput, making it ideal for population-level studies of drug resistance markers in parasites [4] or broad microbial community surveys where high depth is required [80].
• Oxford Nanopore Technologies excels in applications requiring long reads and rapid turnaround times. Despite a higher raw error rate, its ability to sequence full-length genes provides superior taxonomic resolution [80] [79], and its sensitivity is comparable to NGS [64].

For parasite barcoding and antimicrobial resistance research, a pragmatic approach is emerging: using Illumina for high-sensitivity, high-throughput screening, and employing Nanopore for resolving complex genomic regions or achieving species-level classification. As algorithms and chemistries for all platforms continue to improve, these guidelines will evolve, but the foundational understanding of their respective error profiles will remain critical for robust experimental design.

Solving for Homopolymer Regions and Repetitive Sequences in Parasite Genomes

Parasite genomes present significant challenges for genomic researchers due to their complex architecture, which is often characterized by homopolymer tracts (stretches of identical nucleotides) and highly repetitive sequences. These elements are prevalent in many medically important parasites, complicating assembly and accurate variant calling. The choice of DNA sequencing technology directly impacts the ability to resolve these difficult genomic regions, influencing the accuracy of parasite identification, drug resistance marker detection, and broader genomic studies. This guide provides an objective comparison of Sanger sequencing, short-read Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), and long-read sequencing technologies, focusing on their performance in handling homopolymers and repetitive elements within parasite genomes, supported by experimental data.

Technology Comparison: Capabilities and Limitations

The following table summarizes the core characteristics of the three main sequencing generations relevant to parasitology research.

Table 1: Core Sequencing Technology Characteristics

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Short-Read NGS (2nd Gen)	Long-Read Sequencing (3rd Gen)
Read Length	500-1000 base pairs (bp) [81] [53]	50-600 bp [81] [82]	Kilobases (kb) to >1 Megabase (Mb) [83] [82]
Throughput	Low (one fragment per reaction) [81]	Very High (millions of fragments in parallel) [81] [84]	High [83]
Typical Accuracy	>99.99% (single-base resolution) [53]	>99% per base (relies on coverage depth) [81] [82]	~98-99.5% (ONT); >99.9% (PacBio HiFi) [83]
Key Limitation for Repetitive Regions	Limited by the length of a single read; cannot span long repeats.	Short reads cannot uniquely map to or span long repetitive regions and homopolymers, leading to misassemblies [83] [82].	Higher raw error rate for ONT, though HiFi is highly accurate; both excel at spanning repeats [83].

Performance in Parasite Genomics: Experimental Data

Different sequencing approaches have been systematically evaluated for specific parasitology applications, from targeted barcoding to broader genomic characterization.

Targeted Sequencing for Species Identification

Targeted amplicon sequencing (e.g., of 18S rDNA or mtCOI barcodes) is a common method for parasite detection and species identification. The performance of different platforms for this task varies significantly.

Table 2: Platform Comparison for DNA Barcoding and Targeted Sequencing

Application	Platform/Method	Experimental Performance	Reference
Blood Parasite ID (18S rDNA)	Nanopore (V4-V9 region)	Detected T. b. rhodesiense, P. falciparum, and B. bovis in human blood at sensitivities of 1, 4, and 4 parasites/μL, respectively. A >1 kb amplicon enabled species-level resolution on the error-prone nanopore platform [14].	[14]
Plasmodium Drug Resistance Markers	Illumina MiSeq vs. Ion Torrent PGM	Both platforms showed 99.83% sequencing accuracy vs. Sanger. MiSeq provided higher coverage (avg. 28,886 reads/amplicon) than PGM (avg. 1,754 reads/amplicon). Both detected minor alleles down to 1% frequency [4].	[4]
General DNA Barcoding	ONT (R10 & Q20+) vs. PacBio	ONT with R10 & Q20+ chemistry achieved the highest sample success rate. ONT library prep was fastest. For cost-effectiveness vs. Sanger, the threshold was ~183 samples for ONT MinION and ~356 for PacBio [23].	[23]
Mosquito Species ID (Multiplex PCR)	Sanger vs. Multiplex PCR	On 2,271 ovitrap samples, multiplex PCR identified 1990 samples, while Sanger sequencing of mtCOI identified 1722. Multiplex PCR detected 47 mixed-species infections that Sanger missed [10].	[10]

Resolving Structural Variants and Complex Regions

For discovering larger genomic rearrangements or resolving complex areas, long-read technologies are transformative.

Table 3: Performance in Structural Variant and Complex Region Detection

Platform	Performance in Structural Variant (SV) Detection	Implication for Parasite Genomics
PacBio HiFi	F1 scores >95% for SV detection; high alignment accuracy (>99.8%) even in low-complexity regions. Excels in clinical-grade variant calling [83].	Ideal for resolving complex, repetitive pathogenicity islands, antigen gene families, and subtelomeric regions in parasite genomes with high confidence.
Oxford Nanopore (ONT)	High recall for large/complex SVs; F1 scores of 85-90% (improving with Q20+ chemistry). Ultra-long reads can span massive repetitive blocks and complex rearrangements [83].	Can span large segmental duplications and chromosome-length repeats. Portability enables in-field sequencing of pathogens.
Short-Read NGS	Poor performance; SVs in repetitive or low-complexity regions are poorly resolved and often missed, leading to incomplete or misassembled genomes [83].	Inadequate for de novo assembly of complex parasite genomes or comprehensive SV analysis.

Experimental Protocols for Parasite Sequencing

Enhanced Parasite DNA Barcoding on a Nanopore Platform

This protocol from a 2025 study is designed to overcome high host DNA contamination and achieve species-level resolution on a portable sequencer [14].

• Primer Design: Use universal primers (e.g., F566 and 1776R) targeting the V4–V9 hypervariable regions of the 18S rDNA gene to generate a >1 kilobase (kb) amplicon. This longer barcode provides more phylogenetic information to compensate for the sequencer's error rate [14].
• Host DNA Suppression: Employ two blocking primers to selectively inhibit the amplification of host (e.g., human or cattle) 18S rDNA during PCR:
  • A C3 spacer-modified oligo that competes with the universal reverse primer for host template binding and terminates polymerase extension.
  • A Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligo that tightly binds to host-specific sequences and physically blocks polymerase elongation [14].
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Prepare the sequencing library from the amplified, host-depleted product and sequence it on a nanopore device (e.g., MinION) [14].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Base-call the raw data and classify the sequences using a naive Bayesian classifier (e.g., RDP) or BLAST against a curated database for parasite species identification [14].

Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs) for Drug Resistance

This validated protocol for Plasmodium drug resistance markers can be adapted for other parasitic protozoa [4].

• Multiplex PCR Amplification: Design primers to amplify key drug resistance genes (e.g., pfcrt, pfmdr1, pfkelch). A single multiplex PCR reaction can include primers for all targets. For complex samples, a multiplex PCR approach can be used to detect several species simultaneously [4] [10].
• Library Preparation: The amplicons are purified and then prepared for sequencing. For Illumina, this involves attaching dual indices and adapters for cluster generation on a flow cell. For Ion Torrent, adapters are ligated for emulsion PCR on beads [4].
• High-Throughput Sequencing: Sequence the library on the chosen short-read platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq or Ion Torrent PGM). The MiSeq platform typically provides higher coverage per amplicon [4].
• Variant Calling and Analysis: Map the sequenced reads to a reference genome (e.g., P. falciparum 3D7) and call single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and indels. The high depth of coverage allows for the detection of low-frequency alleles (e.g., down to 1%) in mixed-strain infections [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for Parasite Sequencing Studies

Item	Function/Application	Example/Note
Blocking Primers	Suppresses amplification of non-target (e.g., host) DNA in complex samples, enriching for parasite signal.	C3 spacer-modified oligos or PNA clamps [14].
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Amplifies a broad range of eukaryotic parasites for metabarcoding and species identification.	Primers F566 & 1776R target the V4-V9 region [14].
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase	Ensures accurate amplification during PCR for library preparation, critical for variant calling.	Optimized enzymes with proofreading activity reduce PCR errors [53].
Metabarcoding Bioinformatics Pipeline	Analyzes amplicon-based NGS data to assign taxonomic identities and handle mixed infections.	Tools like the RDP classifier or custom BLAST pipelines are used [14] [5].
Portable Sequencer	Enables in-field, real-time genomic surveillance of parasitic diseases.	Oxford Nanopore MinION or PromethION devices [14] [83] [82].

The challenge of homopolymer and repetitive sequences in parasite genomes necessitates a strategic choice of sequencing technology. Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard for confirming specific variants but lacks the throughput for comprehensive studies. Short-read NGS is a powerful, cost-effective tool for high-throughput SNP calling and targeted amplicon sequencing, such as monitoring known drug resistance markers, but it fundamentally fails to resolve complex genomic architecture.

Long-read sequencing technologies from PacBio and Oxford Nanopore have emerged as the definitive solution for these challenges. Their ability to generate reads spanning thousands to millions of bases allows them to traverse repetitive regions and homopolymers directly, enabling de novo assembly of complex parasite genomes and accurate detection of structural variations. As the accuracy of these platforms continues to improve and costs decrease, long-read sequencing is poised to become the cornerstone of advanced parasitology research, finally solving the persistent problem of repetitive genomic content.

In parasitology research, accurate species identification is the cornerstone of understanding epidemiology, disease dynamics, and treatment efficacy. DNA barcoding, which uses short genetic markers to identify species, has become an indispensable tool for this purpose [14] [85]. The fundamental choice researchers face is between first-generation Sanger sequencing and next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms, a decision that profoundly affects project scope, cost efficiency, and data comprehensiveness. Each technology offers distinct advantages: Sanger sequencing provides highly accurate reads for individual samples, while NGS enables the parallel analysis of multiple specimens and genetic markers, transforming the scale at which parasitological studies can be conducted [4] [81]. This cost-benefit analysis provides a structured comparison of these technologies, focusing on their application in parasite barcoding to help researchers make strategically sound decisions based on project-specific requirements, budget constraints, and information needs.

Technical Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. Next-Generation Sequencing

The distinction between Sanger and NGS technologies extends beyond mere throughput to fundamental differences in chemistry, data output, and operational workflows. Understanding these core technical differences is essential for selecting the appropriate tool for parasite barcoding applications.

Sanger sequencing, developed by Frederick Sanger in the 1970s, operates on the chain-termination principle [22]. This method uses dideoxynucleoside triphosphates (ddNTPs) to terminate DNA synthesis at specific bases, producing fragments of varying lengths that are separated by capillary electrophoresis [21]. The result is a single, high-quality read per reaction, typically 500-1000 base pairs long, with an exceptional accuracy exceeding 99.999% (Phred score > Q50) [21]. This "gold standard" approach is ideal for confirming specific variants or sequencing defined loci but is fundamentally limited in throughput by its linear, one-reaction-at-a-time nature.

In contrast, next-generation sequencing employs massively parallel sequencing to simultaneously decipher millions to billions of DNA fragments [21] [22]. While NGS encompasses various platforms (including Illumina, Ion Torrent, and Oxford Nanopore), they share this core principle of parallelism. The most common method, Sequencing by Synthesis (SBS), uses fluorescently labeled reversible terminator nucleotides incorporated into DNA clusters immobilized on a flow cell [21] [81]. After each incorporation cycle, imaging captures the fluorescent signal, the terminator is cleaved, and the process repeats, generating billions of short reads (typically 50-600 base pairs) in a single run [81].

Table 1: Fundamental Technical Differences Between Sanger and NGS

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing
Fundamental Method	Chain termination using ddNTPs [21]	Massively parallel sequencing (e.g., Sequencing by Synthesis) [21]
Detection Method	Capillary electrophoresis and fluorescent detection [21]	High-resolution optical imaging of clustered fragments [21]
Output Type	Single long contiguous read per reaction [21]	Millions to billions of short reads (paired or unpaired) [21]
Read Length	500-1000 base pairs [21] [81]	50-600 base pairs (typical for short-read NGS) [81]
Per-Base Accuracy	>99.999% (Q50) for central read regions [21]	Slightly lower per-read accuracy, but high overall accuracy through coverage depth [21] [81]

The following workflow diagram illustrates the fundamental operational differences between Sanger sequencing and targeted NGS approaches for parasite barcoding:

Quantitative Performance Comparison in Parasite Research

Empirical data from parasitology studies reveals how these technical differences translate into practical performance for specific research applications. A 2022 study directly compared two NGS platforms—Illumina MiSeq and Ion Torrent PGM—for typing Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance markers, providing valuable benchmarks for parasite barcoding applications [4].

The research evaluated six drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, and pfcytochrome b) using both whole blood samples and rapid diagnostic test (RDT) blood spots from patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria [4]. When compared to Sanger sequencing as the reference method, both NGS platforms demonstrated excellent concordance, with sequencing accuracy of 99.83% and variant accuracy of 99.59% [4]. However, the platforms differed significantly in coverage depth, with Illumina MiSeq generating an average of 28,886 reads per amplicon compared to 1,754 reads for Ion Torrent PGM [4].

Table 2: Performance Metrics for Parasite Drug Resistance Marker Identification

Parameter	Ion Torrent PGM	Illumina MiSeq	Sanger Sequencing
Coverage (reads/amplicon)	1,754 (min 15, max 6,456) [4]	28,886 (min 5,288, max 32,597) [4]	Single read per reaction [21]
Sequencing Accuracy	99.83% (571/572) [4]	99.83% (571/572) [4]	>99.999% (industry gold standard) [21]
Variant Accuracy	99.59% (241/242) [4]	99.59% (241/242) [4]	Not applicable (reference method)
Minor Allele Detection	1% density at 500X coverage [4]	1% density at 500X coverage [4]	Limited sensitivity for variants <15-20% [21]
Sample Multiplexing	Up to 96 samples per run [4]	Up to 96 samples per run [4]	Individual reactions required

For parasite barcoding applications, sensitivity in detecting mixed infections is particularly important. Both NGS platforms could reliably detect minor alleles down to 1% density when using 500X coverage, demonstrating superior sensitivity compared to Sanger sequencing, which typically requires variant frequencies of 15-20% for reliable detection [4] [21]. This enhanced sensitivity is crucial for identifying polyclonal infections in malaria parasites and detecting emerging drug-resistant subpopulations [4].

Recent advancements in third-generation sequencing platforms like Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) have further expanded the options for parasite barcoding. A 2025 study demonstrated that ONT with R10 and Q20+ chemistry provided optimal performance for DNA barcode sequencing, with the fastest library preparation time among compared technologies [23]. For studies requiring barcoding of more than 183 samples, ONT MinION became more cost-effective than Sanger sequencing, while PacBio required 356 samples to reach the cost-effectiveness threshold [23].

Cost and Efficiency Analysis

The economic considerations of sequencing technology choice extend beyond per-run costs to encompass total project efficiency, personnel requirements, and long-term value. Understanding the full cost structure is essential for making informed decisions that align with research budgets and objectives.

NGS platforms offer significant economies of scale for larger projects. While the initial capital investment for NGS instrumentation is substantial and per-run reagent costs are higher, the cost per base pair plummets due to massive parallelization [21]. This economic dynamic means that Sanger sequencing maintains a cost advantage for small-scale projects (e.g., confirming single variants or sequencing few samples), but NGS becomes dramatically more cost-effective as project scale increases [21] [81]. The groundbreaking reduction in sequencing costs—from billions of dollars for the first human genome to under $1,000 per genome with NGS—illustrates this transformative economic impact [81].

Table 3: Cost and Operational Efficiency Comparison

Factor	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing
Cost per Base	High cost per base, low cost per run (for small projects) [21]	Low cost per base, high capital and reagent cost per run [21]
Instrument Cost	Lower initial investment [21]	Substantial capital investment [21]
Personnel Requirements	Less specialized expertise needed [86]	Experienced workforce with specialized knowledge required [86]
Multiplexing Capacity	Limited	Up to 96 samples in a single run (demonstrated for parasite markers) [4]
Project Scalability	Low to medium throughput [21]	Extremely high throughput [21]
Bioinformatics Burden	Basic sequence alignment software [21]	Sophisticated pipelines for read alignment, variant calling, data storage [21]

The personnel requirements for each technology also differ significantly. Sanger sequencing can be performed by molecular biologists with standard training, while NGS requires specialized expertise in library preparation, platform operation, and bioinformatics analysis [86]. Retention of proficient NGS personnel can be challenging, with some testing personnel holding positions for less than four years on average, creating additional costs for staff compensation and training [86].

The following decision pathway provides a structured approach to selecting the appropriate sequencing technology based on project parameters:

Experimental Protocols for Parasite Barcoding

Implementing effective parasite barcoding requires standardized methodologies that ensure reproducibility and accuracy. The following protocols are adapted from recent studies that successfully applied sequencing technologies to parasite identification and characterization.

Targeted Amplicon Deep Sequencing (TADs) for Malaria Drug Resistance Markers

This protocol, adapted from the 2022 comparative study of NGS platforms, enables comprehensive characterization of antimalarial drug resistance markers [4]:

• DNA Extraction: Extract genomic DNA from whole blood samples or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) blood spots using commercial kits with modifications for low parasitemia samples.

• Multiplex PCR Amplification: Design primers to target six drug resistance genes: pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, and pfcytochrome b. Amplify using reaction conditions optimized for multiplexing:

  • Reaction volume: 25 μL
  • Template DNA: 2-5 μL
  • PCR conditions: Initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 minutes; 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 seconds, 58°C for 30 seconds, 72°C for 45 seconds; final extension at 72°C for 7 minutes

• Library Preparation:

  • Purify amplicons using magnetic beads
  • Quantify DNA concentration by fluorometry
  • For Ion Torrent PGM: Prepare libraries using Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit
  • For Illumina MiSeq: Prepare libraries using Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit with dual indexing

• Sequencing:

  • Ion Torrent PGM: Sequence using 530 chips with ISP loading density of 48-66%
  • Illumina MiSeq: Sequence using v2 kits with 2×250 bp paired-end reads

• Data Analysis:

  • Demultiplex samples based on barcode sequences
  • Align reads to P. falciparum 3D7 reference genome (assembly GCF_000002765.5)
  • Call variants with minimum coverage of 500X and quality score ≥Q30
  • Identify haplotypes associated with drug resistance

18S rDNA Barcoding for Blood Parasite Identification

This protocol, adapted from a 2025 study on nanopore sequencing for blood parasites, enables comprehensive detection of diverse parasite species [14]:

• Primer Design: Design universal primers (F566 and 1776R) targeting the V4-V9 region of 18S rDNA to cover diverse eukaryotic parasites while maximizing sequence length for accurate species identification.

• Blocking Primer Design: Create two blocking primers (3SpC3Hs1829R and PNAHs1986F) to suppress amplification of host mammalian DNA:

  • 3SpC3_Hs1829R: Competes with universal reverse primer, contains C3 spacer modification at 3' end
  • PNA_Hs1986F: Peptide nucleic acid oligo that inhibits polymerase elongation

• Selective PCR Amplification:

  • Reaction includes both universal primers and blocking primers at optimized ratios
  • Thermal cycling conditions: 98°C for 30 seconds; 35 cycles of 98°C for 10 seconds, 68°C for 30 seconds, 72°C for 2 minutes; final extension at 72°C for 5 minutes

• Nanopore Library Preparation and Sequencing:

  • Prepare libraries using Native Barcoding Kit (EXP-NBD196) and Ligation Sequencing Kit (SQK-LSK110)
  • Sequence on MinION Mk1C using R10.4.1 flow cells
  • Run for 24-72 hours with real-time basecalling enabled

• Bioinformatic Analysis:

  • Basecall raw signals using Guppy with high-accuracy model
  • Demultiplex samples and trim adapters
  • Classify sequences using BLAST against curated 18S rDNA database
  • Assign species based on ≥97% identity to reference sequences

Research Reagent Solutions for Parasite Barcoding

Successful implementation of parasite barcoding protocols requires specific reagents and materials optimized for the unique challenges of working with parasitic DNA. The following table details essential solutions and their applications in sequencing workflows.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Parasite Barcoding Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Blocking Primers (C3 spacer-modified oligos or PNA)	Suppress host DNA amplification by competing with universal primers or inhibiting polymerase elongation [14]	Enrich parasite 18S rDNA from blood samples with high host background [14]
Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit	Prepare sequencing libraries for Ion Torrent PGM platform [4]	Targeted amplicon sequencing of Plasmodium drug resistance genes [4]
Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit	Prepare indexed libraries for Illumina platforms with dual indexing [4]	Multiplexed sequencing of multiple parasite samples in one MiSeq run [4]
Native Barcoding Kit (EXP-NBD196)	Barcode DNA samples for nanopore sequencing [14]	Multiplexing multiple parasite specimens on MinION flow cells [14]
Ligation Sequencing Kit (SQK-LSK110)	Prepare libraries for nanopore sequencing using ligation approach [14]	Sequencing long 18S rDNA amplicons for parasite identification [14]
Magnetic Beads (SPRI)	Purify and size-select DNA fragments before sequencing [4]	Clean up multiplex PCR products for parasite target enrichment [4]
R10.4.1 Flow Cells	Nanopore sequencing flow cells with improved accuracy for homopolymer regions [23]	DNA barcoding of parasites using MinION platform with Q20+ chemistry [23]

The choice between Sanger sequencing and NGS for parasite barcoding research is not merely a technical decision but a strategic one that shapes the scope, depth, and impact of research outcomes. This cost-benefit analysis reveals a clear framework for matching technology to project requirements.

Sanger sequencing remains the optimal choice for projects with limited sample numbers (typically <60), focused research questions targeting specific genetic regions, and laboratories with constrained bioinformatics capabilities [21] [23]. Its operational simplicity, long read lengths, and exceptional per-base accuracy make it ideal for confirming specific variants, sequencing individual clones, or validating findings from initial screening studies.

Next-generation sequencing becomes increasingly advantageous as project scale and complexity grow [4] [81]. The ability to multiplex dozens of samples in a single run reduces per-sample costs dramatically for larger studies [4]. More importantly, NGS provides capabilities simply unavailable with Sanger sequencing: detection of mixed infections and minor variants down to 1% frequency, comprehensive analysis of multiple genetic loci simultaneously, and discovery of novel parasites without prior knowledge of targets [4] [14].

For parasite barcoding applications specifically, the enhanced sensitivity of NGS for detecting low-frequency variants is particularly valuable for monitoring emerging drug resistance in malaria parasites [4]. Similarly, the agnostic nature of targeted NGS approaches using conserved gene regions like 18S rDNA enables detection of unexpected or novel parasites that might be missed by species-specific assays [14].

The most effective approach for many research programs may be a hybrid strategy that leverages the strengths of both technologies: using NGS for comprehensive discovery and screening phases, followed by Sanger sequencing for validation of key findings [21]. As sequencing technologies continue to evolve, with third-generation platforms offering improved long-read capabilities and reduced costs, the strategic landscape will continue to shift toward more comprehensive genomic approaches to parasite identification and characterization [22] [23].

Head-to-Head Comparison: Validating Performance and Making the Right Choice

The choice between Sanger sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) is pivotal in parasite barcoding research, directly impacting the detection, identification, and understanding of parasitic infections. This guide provides a direct performance comparison of these two technologies, focusing on the critical metrics of sensitivity, specificity, and limit of detection (LoD) within the context of parasitic disease research. As research increasingly focuses on complex scenarios such as mixed infections, low-level parasitemia, and the discovery of novel species, understanding the technical capabilities and limitations of each sequencing method is essential for designing effective studies and obtaining reliable, actionable data.

Core Performance Metrics Comparison

The fundamental differences in how Sanger sequencing and NGS process samples lead to significant disparities in their performance characteristics. The table below summarizes a direct comparison of these key metrics.

Table 1: Direct Performance Comparison of Sanger Sequencing and NGS

Performance Metric	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Limit of Detection (LoD) for Minor Variants	15-20% (standard); 0.5%-5% (with specialized methods) [33] [87] [70]	0.3%-1% (standard); can reach 0.01% with specialized enrichment [88] [89] [90]
Typical Sensitivity	Lower sensitivity; struggles with variants below ~15% allele frequency [33] [70]	High sensitivity; capable of detecting low-frequency variants with deep sequencing [33] [88]
Specificity	High accuracy (>99%); considered the "gold standard" for validation [91]	High specificity (e.g., >99.9% reported); can be compromised by sequencing artifacts without proper bioinformatics [88] [89]
Throughput	Low; sequences one fragment per run [33] [70]	Very High; millions of fragments sequenced in parallel [33] [70]
Discovery Power	Limited; best for confirming known variants [33] [70]	High; ideal for identifying novel variants and mixed infections [33] [14]
Cost-Effectiveness	Cost-effective for 1-20 targets [33] [91]	Cost-effective for high-throughput analysis of multiple targets/samples [33] [70]

Experimental Protocols for Enhanced Detection

Standard protocol sensitivities can be improved upon using specialized methodological modifications.

Enhanced Sanger Sequencing via Wild-Type Blocking PCR

This protocol is designed to improve the sensitivity of Sanger sequencing for detecting low-frequency somatic mutations, such as those in minimal residual disease, by preferentially amplifying mutant alleles.

• Blocking Primer Design: Design oligonucleotide blockers complementary to the wild-type sequence at the mutation site. Technologies include:

  • Blocker Displacement Amplification (BDA): Uses specific oligonucleotides to block wild-type amplification [87].
  • Locked Nucleic Acids (LNA): Utilizes non-extendable LNA oligos that bind tightly to the wild-type sequence [87].
  • Hot-Spot-Specific Probes (HSSP): Designed for specific mutation hotspots [87].
  • These blockers are typically modified at the 3' end (e.g., with a C3 spacer) to prevent polymerase elongation [87] [14].

• Enrichment PCR: Perform a PCR reaction that includes:

  • Standard forward and reverse primers for the target region.
  • The wild-type blocking primer.
  • The PCR is optimized to a critical denaturation temperature (Tc) where the mutant DNA denatures preferentially, allowing selective amplification of the mutant sequence. This enrichment step can increase the mutant allele fraction in the final sample [87] [90].

• Standard Sanger Sequencing: The enriched PCR product is then purified and sequenced using conventional Sanger sequencing methods. The pre-amplification enrichment allows the detection of mutations with sensitivities as low as 0.5% [87].

Targeted NGS for Parasite Detection and Speciation

This protocol uses a targeted NGS approach with Oxford Nanopore technology for sensitive and specific identification of blood parasites, even in samples with overwhelming host DNA.

• DNA Extraction: Extract total DNA from a patient blood sample using a commercial kit (e.g., QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit) [88] [14].

• Host DNA Suppression & Target Amplification: Perform a PCR with the following components to selectively amplify parasite DNA:

  • Universal Primers: Use primers (e.g., F566 and 1776R) that target a conserved region (V4-V9) of the 18S ribosomal RNA gene across a wide range of eukaryotic parasites [14].
  • Blocking Primers: Include two types of primers designed to bind specifically to host (e.g., human or cattle) 18S rDNA:
    • A C3 spacer-modified oligo that competes with the universal reverse primer [14].
    • A Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligo that strongly binds to and inhibits the elongation of host DNA [14]. This combination selectively suppresses the amplification of host DNA, thereby enriching for parasite 18S rDNA sequences.

• Library Preparation and Sequencing:

  • Prepare the sequencing library from the amplified PCR products using a ligation sequencing kit (e.g., Oxford Nanopore Ligation Sequencing Kit) [14] [92].
  • Load the library onto a portable nanopore sequencer (e.g., MinION) for sequencing. The long-read capability allows for the generation of >1kb amplicons, which is crucial for accurate species-level identification [14].

• Bioinformatic Analysis:

  • Base-calling is performed (e.g., with Guppy in super high accuracy mode) [92].
  • Reads are filtered by quality and length.
  • Filtered reads are classified using a taxonomic classifier (e.g., BLAST against a curated 18S rDNA database or a naive Bayesian classifier) to identify parasite species. The use of the long V4-V9 barcode region improves classification accuracy compared to shorter regions [14].

Experimental Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the key steps and decision points in the targeted NGS workflow for parasite barcoding, as described in the experimental protocol.

Diagram 1: Targeted NGS workflow for parasite detection and speciation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of the described protocols relies on a set of key reagents and tools. The following table details these essential components.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Parasite Barcoding

Reagent / Tool	Function	Example Kits/Formats
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Amplifies a broad region of the 18S rRNA gene from diverse eukaryotic parasites, enabling "barcoding" [14].	Primers F566 & 1776R (spanning V4-V9) [14].
Blocking Primers (C3/PNA)	Suppresses amplification of host DNA by binding specifically to host 18S rDNA and terminating polymerase extension, enriching parasite signal [87] [14].	C3-spacer modified oligos; Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) oligos [14].
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolates high-quality DNA, including cell-free DNA, from whole blood or other clinical samples [88].	QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit; MagPure Universal DNA Kit; DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit [88] [92].
Targeted Sequencing Panel	A predefined set of probes or primers to capture and sequence a specific set of genes or genomic regions of interest [88].	Custom 101-gene cancer panel; Amplicon panels (e.g., Ion AmpliSeq) [88] [90].
Long-read Sequencer	A sequencing platform capable of generating long sequence reads, beneficial for resolving complex regions and species-level identification [14] [92].	Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) MinION; Pacific Biosciences (PB) Sequel IIe [14] [92].
Bioinformatics Tools	Software for processing raw sequencing data, including base-calling, quality control, alignment, and variant or taxonomic calling [88] [14].	Guppy (base-caller); BLAST; Burrows-Wheeler Aligner (BWA); Vardict; RDP classifier [88] [14].

For researchers in parasite barcoding and drug development, selecting the appropriate DNA sequencing technology is a critical decision that directly impacts data quality, project scope, and budget. The choice between the established Sanger sequencing and massively parallel Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) hinges on a clear understanding of their respective costs and throughput capabilities. This guide provides an objective, data-driven comparison of these two platforms, focusing on the metrics that matter most for research: cost per base, total data yield, and the implications for experimental design in genomic studies.

Fundamental Technological Divergence

At their core, Sanger and NGS technologies operate on fundamentally different principles, which directly cause their dramatic differences in throughput and cost.

• Sanger Sequencing (Chain Termination Method): This first-generation method relies on dideoxynucleoside triphosphates (ddNTPs) to terminate DNA synthesis at specific bases. The resulting fluorescently-labeled fragments are separated by size via capillary electrophoresis, producing a single, long contiguous read per reaction [21]. This process is inherently linear and low-throughput.
• Next-Generation Sequencing (Massively Parallel Sequencing): NGS platforms, such as those using Sequencing by Synthesis (SBS), run millions to billions of sequencing reactions simultaneously on a solid surface [21] [33]. This parallelization is the key to its revolutionary scalability, allowing for the concurrent sequencing of hundreds to thousands of genes in a single run [33].

Direct Cost and Throughput Comparison

The fundamental technological differences translate into distinct economic and output profiles. The table below summarizes the key quantitative metrics for comparison.

Table 1: Direct Comparison of Cost, Throughput, and Key Metrics

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Fundamental Method	Chain termination with capillary electrophoresis [21]	Massively parallel sequencing (e.g., SBS) [21] [33]
Output per Run	Single DNA fragment [21] [33]	Millions to billions of short reads [21]
Data Yield	Low (typically one gene per reaction) [33]	Extremely High (entire genomes or multiple samples) [21]
Cost Efficiency	High cost per base; low cost per run for small projects [21]	Very low cost per base; high capital and reagent cost per run [21]
Read Length	Long (500–1,000 bp) [21]	Short (50–300 bp, platform-dependent) [21]
Best for Number of Targets	Cost-effective for 1-20 targets [33]	Cost-effective for >20 targets; ideal for hundreds to thousands [33]
Approximate Cost per Genome	Prohibitively expensive for whole genomes	~$200 (Illumina, 2024) to ~$100 (Ultima Genomics, 2024) [93]

Deeper Dive into Cost Structures

• Sanger Sequencing Costs: The cost profile is characterized by a low initial instrument investment but a high recurring cost per base. For example, a service provider lists Sanger sequencing costs between $2.50 to $5.99 per sample, depending on bulk discounts and read length [94]. This model is economical for confirming a single nucleotide variant or sequencing a small PCR product but becomes prohibitively expensive for larger projects.
• NGS Costs: The NGS model requires a substantial initial capital investment and higher reagent costs per run. However, this cost is distributed across billions of bases sequenced simultaneously, leading to a dramatically lower cost per base [21]. The cost of sequencing a full human genome has plummeted, with claims ranging from $200 (Illumina) to as low as $100 (Ultima Genomics) in 2024 [93]. A 2016 cost analysis for viral (HIV/HCV) sequencing found the cost per sample for NGS was broadly equivalent to Sanger sequencing while providing vastly more data, demonstrating its added value [95].

Experimental Data from Parasite Barcoding Research

A 2022 study on Blastocystis, a common intestinal protist, provides a direct experimental comparison of Sanger and NGS in a parasite subtyping context, highly relevant to barcoding research [48].

Experimental Protocol

• Sample Collection: 288 DNA samples from gut-healthy human volunteers [48].
• Molecular Method: A fragment of the small subunit ribosomal RNA (SSU rDNA) gene was amplified for analysis [48].
• Sequencing & Analysis:
  • Sanger Sequencing: PCR products were sequenced directly. The resulting chromatogram was analyzed against reference databases [48].
  • NGS (Illumina MiSeq): The same genomic region was amplified, indexed, and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform (2 × 250 bp kit). The millions of resulting reads were analyzed bioinformatically to determine subtypes and their proportions [48].

Key Findings and Implications

The study concluded that the combination of qPCR and NGS provided the most comprehensive data for epidemiological surveillance [48]. The specific advantages of NGS included:

• Higher Sensitivity for Mixed Infections: NGS detected mixtures of different Blastocystis subtypes in 47 samples that were missed by Sanger sequencing [48]. This is critical for understanding complex parasite colonization.
• Superior Subtype Detection Power: The deep, quantitative data from NGS allows for the detection of rare subtypes within a sample, providing a more complete picture of parasite diversity [48].

Workflow and Data Analysis Implications

The choice of technology also dictates the required laboratory and bioinformatics workflow, a crucial consideration for research teams.

Bioinformatics Demand

• Sanger Sequencing: The output is a single sequence chromatogram per reaction. Analysis is straightforward, often requiring only basic sequence alignment software and tools like BLAST for identification [21]. The bioinformatics burden is low.
• NGS: The output is terabytes of data comprising billions of short reads [21]. This necessitates a robust bioinformatics pipeline for tasks such as:
  • Read Alignment: Mapping short reads to a reference genome.
  • Variant Calling: Statistically identifying sequence variants.
  • Data Storage and Management: A significant infrastructure overhead not required for Sanger [21].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key reagents and materials used in typical Sanger and NGS workflows for parasite barcoding.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Sequencing Workflows

Item	Function in Workflow
DNA Polymerase	Enzyme critical for amplifying the DNA template in both Sanger and NGS library preparation [21].
Fluorescent ddNTPs	Chain-terminating nucleotides used in Sanger sequencing. Each base (A, T, C, G) is labeled with a different fluorescent dye for detection [21] [65].
Indexed Adapters (Barcodes)	Short, unique DNA sequences ligated to samples during NGS library prep. Allow for multiplexing—pooling hundreds of samples in a single sequencing run [21].
Flow Cell	The solid surface in an NGS instrument where millions of clustered DNA fragments are attached and sequenced in parallel [21].
TaqMan Probes	Fluorescently-labeled probes used in qPCR assays (as cited in the Blastocystis study) to detect and quantify specific DNA targets with high sensitivity [48].

The decision between Sanger and NGS is not about which technology is superior, but which is optimal for a specific research question.

• Choose Sanger Sequencing when: Your work requires sequencing a small number of targets (≤20), such as validating a specific genetic variant, confirming a cloning construct, or performing low-complexity mutation detection in a known locus. Its operational simplicity, long read length, and low bioinformatics overhead make it ideal for focused, hypothesis-driven applications [21] [33] [65].
• Choose Next-Generation Sequencing when: Your research demands high throughput, massive scale, or high sensitivity for rare variants. This includes whole-genome sequencing of pathogens, deep transcriptome analysis (RNA-Seq), metagenomic studies, and detecting low-frequency variants in heterogeneous samples (e.g., mixed parasite infections or tumor biopsies) [21] [48] [33]. The low cost per base and unparalleled discovery power make NGS indispensable for broad, unbiased genomic investigations.

For comprehensive parasite barcoding studies that require detecting diverse subtypes and mixed infections, NGS, despite its higher computational demands, provides a depth of information that Sanger sequencing cannot match. A powerful strategy employed in many labs is to use NGS for primary discovery and Sanger sequencing as a gold-standard method for confirmatory validation [21] [65].

Sanger Sequencing as a Gold Standard for NGS Variant Validation

For years, Sanger sequencing has been entrenched as the unquestioned gold standard for validating variants discovered through next-generation sequencing (NGS). This practice emerged from initial skepticism about NGS accuracy and became embedded in clinical and research guidelines. However, as NGS technologies have matured, yielding demonstrably higher accuracy and reliability, the mandatory requirement for orthogonal Sanger confirmation is being rigorously challenged. A growing body of evidence from large-scale studies suggests that routine Sanger validation of NGS-derived variants provides diminishing returns, unnecessarily consuming valuable time and resources [96] [97]. This guide objectively compares the performance of Sanger sequencing and NGS for variant validation, with a specific focus on implications for parasite barcoding research. We summarize critical quantitative data, provide detailed experimental methodologies from key studies, and offer evidence-based recommendations to help researchers optimize their validation workflows.

Performance Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS

The following tables summarize the core technical and performance characteristics of Sanger sequencing and NGS, highlighting their respective advantages and limitations in validation workflows.

Table 1: Core Characteristics and Advantages of Sanger Sequencing and NGS

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Underlying Principle	Dideoxy chain termination [98]	Massively parallel sequencing of millions of fragments [33]
Sequencing Volume	Single DNA fragment per reaction [33]	Millions of fragments simultaneously per run [33]
Maximum Read Length	500 - 1,000 bases [98] [71]	50 - 300 bp (Illumina); >20,000 bp (Long-read) [71]
Typical Accuracy	>99.99% [71]	At least equivalent to Sanger; Concordance rates >99.9% reported [96] [97]
Key Advantage	Simple data analysis; effective for single, short targets [98] [71]	Unparalleled sensitivity and discovery power for multiple targets; high throughput [33]

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison for Variant Detection

Performance Metric	Sanger Sequencing	Targeted NGS	Supporting Evidence
Limit of Detection (Sensitivity)	~15-20% variant allele frequency [98] [33]	Down to ~1% variant allele frequency [33]	Key for detecting low-abundance variants in mixed infections.
Variant Validation Concordance	Used as reference	99.965% (5,800+ variants) [96]100% (1,079 SNVs/Indels) [97]	Large-scale studies demonstrate extreme accuracy of high-quality NGS data.
Cost-Effectiveness	Best for 1-20 targets [33]	Best for >20 targets or many samples [33]	Economics favor NGS for larger-scale projects.
Ability to Detect Mixed Infections	Limited; requires cloning for confirmation [99] [100]	Superior; detects and quantifies multiple subtypes simultaneously [100]	NGS identified 49 mixed infections vs. 3 confirmed by Sanger/cloning [100].

Experimental Data: Challenging the Gold Standard

Large-Scale Validation Studies

Recent large-scale studies have systematically evaluated the necessity of Sanger validation for NGS findings.

• ClinSeq Study (2016): This study evaluated over 5,800 NGS-derived variants from 684 exomes against Sanger sequencing data. Only 19 variants were not initially validated by Sanger. Upon re-evaluation with optimized primers, 17 of these were confirmed as true positives by Sanger, while the remaining two had low-quality scores in the exome data. This resulted in a final validation rate of 99.965% for NGS variants. The study concluded that a single round of Sanger sequencing is more likely to incorrectly refute a true positive NGS variant than to correctly identify a false positive, and that routine Sanger validation has limited utility [96].
• Clinical Exome Study (2021): In a validation of 1,109 variants from 825 clinical exomes, this study found 100% concordance between high-quality NGS variants and Sanger sequencing for both SNVs and small indels. The authors noted that the few discrepancies encountered were attributable to issues with Sanger sequencing, such as preferential amplification during PCR, rather than NGS errors. They concluded that Sanger sequencing is highly useful as an internal quality control but is not necessary as a verification method for high-quality NGS variants [97].

Superior Performance in Complex Detection Scenarios

The limitations of Sanger sequencing become particularly evident in applications like DNA barcoding and pathogen subtyping, where mixed infections or hypervariable regions are common.

• Parasite Barcoding - Blastocystis Subtyping: A 2019 study developed an NGS amplicon sequencing approach to detect Blastocystis subtypes in cattle feces and compared it directly to Sanger sequencing and cloning.
  • Sanger Sequencing: Suspected 18 mixed infections but could only confirm 3 through labor-intensive cloning.
  • NGS Approach: Identified 49 mixed infections (16 times more than Sanger) and revealed 14 subtypes compared to 11 detected by Sanger. It also found the potentially zoonotic Subtype 3 in 37% of specimens, compared to only four specimens using Sanger. The study concluded that NGS dramatically improves detection of mixed infections and low-abundance subtypes [100].
• Mosquito DNA Barcoding: Research on mosquito species using the hypervariable ITS2 region demonstrated that NGS could characterize a vast diversity of alleles (382 unique sequences from 88 specimens) that were previously overlooked by Sanger sequencing due to technical limitations like intra-individual variability and the presence of microsatellites [99].

Experimental Protocols for NGS-based Barcoding

The following workflow generalizes the successful NGS amplicon sequencing methods used in the parasite and mosquito barcoding studies [20] [99] [100], which can be adapted for various research applications.

Detailed Methodological Steps

• DNA Extraction & Amplification:

  • DNA Source: Use appropriate tissue (e.g., single leg for mosquitoes, fecal samples for parasites) [99] [100].
  • Nucleic Acid Extraction: Perform using standardized kits (e.g., MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Kit, Nucleospin Tissue kit, or Qiagen DNeasy Tissue Kit) [20] [99] [100].
  • Target Amplification: PCR amplify the target barcode region (e.g., SSU rRNA for Blastocystis, ITS2 or COI for mosquitoes) using specific primers.
  • Primer Barcoding: During PCR, use forward and reverse primers that have been tagged with unique 8-10 bp barcode sequences (Multiple Identifiers or MIDs). This allows multiplexing of hundreds of samples in a single run [20] [99].

• Library Preparation & Sequencing:

  • Purification: Clean PCR products using solid-phase reversible immobilization (SPRI) beads like AMPure XP [99].
  • Library Construction: Ligate universal Illumina adapters to the purified amplicons. In some protocols, a second, limited-cycle PCR is used to add full adapter sequences and sample-specific indices [99].
  • Pooling & QC: Combine barcoded libraries in equimolar ratios into a single pool. Quantify the final pool using a fluorometer (e.g., Qubit) and validate library size distribution with an instrument like Bioanalyzer [99].
  • Sequencing: Sequence the pooled library on a platform such as the Illumina MiSeq (for 2x250 bp reads) or a 454 pyrosequencer [20] [99] [100].

• Bioinformatic Analysis:

  • Demultiplexing: Assign sequences to individual samples based on their unique barcode combinations.
  • Quality Filtering & Clustering: Remove low-quality reads and cluster high-quality sequences into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) or haplotypes based on sequence similarity (e.g., >97% identity).
  • Subtype Assignment: Classify OTUs by comparing them to reference databases (e.g., BLAST against GenBank or a curated barcode database) to determine species or subtype identity and relative abundance [100].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key reagents and kits used in the NGS barcoding workflows described in the cited studies.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for NGS Amplicon Barcoding

Reagent / Kit	Function in Workflow	Specific Example / Citation
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit	Isolates genomic DNA from source material.	MagMAX DNA Multi-Sample Kit [99], Nucleospin Tissue kit [20], Qiagen DNeasy Tissue Kit [100].
Barcoded PCR Primers	Amplifies target locus and tags each sample with a unique molecular identifier.	Primers LepF1/LepR1 for COI with 10-mer MIDs [20]; ITS2-MOS-F/R for mosquito ITS2 [99].
DNA Polymerase	Enzymatic amplification of the target barcode region.	Invitrogen Platinum Taq polymerase [20]; Standard Taq DNA Polymerase [99].
SPRI Magnetic Beads	Purification and size-selection of PCR products and final libraries.	AMPure XP Beads (Beckman Coulter) [99].
Library Preparation Kit	Prepares amplicons for sequencing by adding platform-specific adapters and indices.	Illumina-compatible kits for adapter ligation and indexing PCR [99].
Sequencing Platform	Executes massively parallel sequencing of the prepared library.	Illumina MiSeq [99]; 454 Pyrosequencer [20].

The collective evidence indicates that the paradigm of sequencing validation is shifting. Sanger sequencing is no longer an obligatory gold standard for all contexts. For high-quality NGS data—characterized by high depth of coverage (>20x), high quality scores (e.g., QUAL ≥100), and clear variant fractions—orthogonal Sanger validation is largely redundant [96] [97]. The workflow below summarizes the modern, evidence-based approach to variant confirmation.

Key Recommendations for Researchers

• Establish Internal Quality Thresholds: Laboratories should validate their own NGS workflows and establish minimum quality metrics (depth, quality score, variant allele fraction) for variants that can be reported without Sanger confirmation [97].
• Leverage NGS for Complex Applications: In parasite barcoding, metagenomics, and detection of mixed infections, NGS is not just an alternative but a superior tool that provides a comprehensive picture of diversity that Sanger sequencing cannot achieve [99] [100].
• Redirect Resources: The time and financial resources saved by forgoing routine Sanger validation can be reallocated to increase sequencing depth, expand sample sizes, or enhance bioinformatic analyses, thereby generating more robust and reproducible data.

In conclusion, while Sanger sequencing remains a valuable tool for specific, targeted applications, the body of evidence demonstrates that high-quality NGS data is independently reliable. For modern genomics, particularly in complex fields like parasite barcoding, NGS has transitioned from a technology that requires validation to one that can itself validate and vastly extend our biological understanding.

The choice of DNA sequencing technology is a critical decision in parasite barcoding research, directly impacting the accuracy, speed, and cost of species identification and resistance marker detection. Sanger sequencing, the long-established gold standard, is now complemented by a suite of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and third-generation sequencing technologies, each with distinct performance characteristics. This guide provides an objective comparison of these technologies, framing their specifications within the specific context of parasite research, from identifying Plasmodium species to tracking antimalarial drug resistance. Supporting experimental data and detailed methodologies are included to aid researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in selecting the optimal tool for their investigative needs.

Technology Comparison at a Glance

The following table summarizes the core performance metrics of the major sequencing technologies used in life sciences research.

Technology	Read Length	Error Rate	Single-Run Speed (Time per run)	Key Strengths and Ideal Use-Cases
Sanger Sequencing (First-Generation) [64] [21]	500-1000 bp (long contiguous reads) [81] [21]	Very low (~0.001%) [64]	20 minutes - 3 hours [64]	Gold standard for validation [64] [21]; Targeted confirmation of NGS-identified variants [21]; Cost-effective for sequencing 1-20 specific targets (e.g., single genes) [33] [70]; Clone and plasmid verification [21].
Illumina (Second-Generation NGS) [22]	50-300 bp (short reads) [81] [22]	>99% per-base accuracy [81] [22]	~48 hours for NGS panels [64]	High-throughput, cost-effective per base [81] [21]; Ideal for whole-genome sequencing [21], targeted panels (e.g., for drug resistance markers) [4], and detecting low-frequency variants down to 1% due to high sequencing depth [33] [64].
PacBio SMRT (Third-Generation) [22]	Long reads (avg. 10,000-25,000 bp) [22]	~5% (higher than Sanger/Illumina, but improving) [22] [23]	Real-time data generation [22]	Resolving complex genomic regions [81]; De novo genome assembly [22]; Detecting large structural variations [81].
Oxford Nanopore (Third-Generation) [22] [64]	Long reads (avg. 10,000-30,000 bp, up to megabases) [22] [64]	~5% (higher than Sanger/Illumina, but improving with new chemistries) [22] [64]	1 minute - 48 hours (real-time) [64]	Ultra-long reads for spanning repetitive regions [81]; Portability for field deployment (e.g., MinION) [8]; Real-time analysis [22]; Rapid turnaround, potentially under 24 hours [64].

Supporting Experimental Data in Parasite Research

Empirical studies directly compare the performance of these technologies in real-world parasitology applications, providing critical data for platform selection.

Case Study: Plasmodium falciparum Drug Resistance Genotyping

A 2022 study directly compared Targeted Amplicon Deep sequencing (TADs) on two NGS platforms—Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq—using Sanger sequencing as the reference standard for typing P. falciparum drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, pfcytochrome b) [4].

• Experimental Protocol:

  • Sample Preparation: 20 whole blood samples and 5 rapid diagnostic test (RDT) samples from patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria, plus artificial mixtures of 3D7 and K1 reference strain DNA.
  • Amplification: Target amplicons for the six drug resistance genes were produced via PCR.
  • Library Preparation & Sequencing: Amplified products were prepared into libraries and sequenced on both the Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq platforms according to their respective protocols.
  • Data Analysis: Sequence reads were aligned to the P. falciparum 3D7 reference genome. Variant calling was performed and compared against Sanger sequencing results for 572 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [4].

• Key Findings:

  • Concordance: Both NGS platforms showed 99.83% sequencing accuracy and 99.59% variant accuracy compared to Sanger sequencing [4].
  • Coverage: The Illumina MiSeq platform yielded a much higher mean read depth per amplicon (28,886 reads) compared to the Ion Torrent PGM (1,754 reads) [4].
  • Sensitivity: In artificial mixed infections, both platforms could reliably detect a minor allele frequency down to 1% at 500x coverage [4].
  • Cost: The multiplexing capability of both NGS protocols (up to 96 samples per run) reduced the cost by 86% compared to conventional Sanger sequencing [4].

Case Study: MinION for Rapid Oncohematology Diagnostics

A 2025 study validated the use of Oxford Nanopore's MinION technology for sequencing short fragments relevant to blood cancers, demonstrating its applicability to targeted, time-sensitive diagnostics [64].

• Experimental Protocol:

  • Sample and Target: 164 patient samples were analyzed for mutations in 15 genes relevant to myeloproliferative neoplasms, acute myeloid leukemia, and other oncohematological diseases.
  • Library Preparation: Marker-specific PCR was performed, followed by library preparation using ONT kits.
  • Sequencing and Analysis: Libraries were loaded onto the MinION sequencer. Base-calling and alignment were performed after sequencing completion [64].

• Key Findings:

  • Concordance: The study found a 99.43% concordance between MinION and the standard methods (Sanger/NGS) [64].
  • Sensitivity: MinION technology demonstrated a sensitivity of <1% for variant allele frequency, comparable to NGS and superior to Sanger sequencing (15-20%) [64].
  • Speed: The study highlighted MinION's potential for a turnaround time of under 24 hours, a significant advantage over longer NGS workflows [64].

Workflow Visualization: From Sample to Sequence in Parasite Barcoding

The following diagram illustrates a generalized experimental workflow for a parasite barcoding study using targeted NGS, integrating steps from the cited research [4] [8].

Parasite Barcoding and Resistance Genotyping Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents for Targeted NGS

Successful implementation of a parasite barcoding study requires specific reagents and materials. The table below details key solutions based on the protocols from the cited research.

Research Reagent Solution	Function in the Experiment
Universal 18S rDNA Primers (e.g., F566 & 1776R) [8]	Amplifies a broad, informative DNA barcode region (V4-V9) from a wide range of eukaryotic blood parasites for species identification.
Host DNA Blocking Primers (C3-spacer modified oligos or PNA oligos) [8]	Selectively suppresses the amplification of overwhelming host (e.g., human or cattle) 18S rDNA, thereby enriching for parasite DNA in the sample.
Target-Specific PCR Primers [4] [64]	Amplifies specific genomic loci of interest, such as drug resistance genes in P. falciparum (pfcrt, pfkelch, etc.) or mutation hotspots in human cancer genes.
High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase [53]	Ensures accurate amplification of target sequences during PCR, minimizing introduction of errors that could be misinterpreted as real genetic variants.
Platform-Specific Library Prep Kit (e.g., for Illumina, Ion Torrent, or Nanopore) [4] [64]	Prepares the amplified DNA fragments for sequencing by adding platform-specific adapters and barcodes, enabling multiplexing and binding to the sequencing flow cell.

The choice between Sanger sequencing, NGS, and third-generation platforms for parasite barcoding is not one of superiority but of application. Sanger sequencing remains the unambiguous choice for low-throughput, targeted confirmation. Illumina-based NGS offers a powerful, cost-effective solution for high-throughput screening of drug resistance markers and barcodes. Oxford Nanopore Technologies emerges as a transformative tool for rapid, portable, and comprehensive field applications, especially with its long-read capabilities enabling better resolution of complex regions. Researchers must weigh the parameters of read length, error rate, speed, and cost against their specific project goals, whether that is routine surveillance, rapid outbreak response, or novel parasite discovery.

The accurate detection of minority variants and mixed parasitic infections represents a significant challenge in clinical parasitology and research. Traditional methods, particularly Sanger sequencing, have long been the standard for genetic characterization but face inherent limitations in sensitivity and throughput when analyzing complex microbial populations [45]. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies have emerged as transformative tools that overcome these limitations, providing unprecedented resolution for detecting genetic diversity within parasitic populations [101] [45]. This capability is crucial for understanding disease transmission, drug resistance emergence, and the true complexity of parasitic infections, which often involve multiple species or genetically distinct variants within a single host [5]. The superior sensitivity of NGS enables researchers to detect low-frequency variants that would otherwise be missed by conventional methods, thereby providing a more comprehensive picture of parasitic diversity and infection dynamics.

Technical Comparison: NGS vs. Sanger Sequencing

Fundamental Technological Differences

Sanger sequencing, also known as dideoxy sequencing, operates by incorporating fluorescently-tagged dideoxynucleotides (ddNTPs) during DNA synthesis, which terminate strand elongation at specific nucleotide positions [70]. This method processes a single DNA fragment per reaction, generating a consensus sequence that represents the dominant template in a sample [33]. In contrast, NGS utilizes massively parallel sequencing, whereby billions of DNA fragments are simultaneously and independently sequenced in a single run [102]. This fundamental difference in throughput creates a dramatic disparity in the ability to detect genetic variants present at low frequencies within mixed populations [103] [33].

The critical distinction lies in how each technology samples the underlying population of DNA molecules. Sanger sequencing produces a composite chromatogram where minor variants appear as background noise, typically detectable only at frequencies above 15-20% [70]. NGS, however, maintains the identity of individual DNA molecules throughout the sequencing process, enabling precise quantification of variants present at frequencies as low as 0.2-1% depending on the specific platform and methodology [103] [104]. This massive increase in sensitivity stems from both the deep sequencing capability (generating thousands to millions of reads per target) and the ability to track individual molecules through unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) [103].

Performance Metrics and Capabilities

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS for Parasite Detection

Performance Characteristic	Sanger Sequencing	Next-Generation Sequencing
Detection Sensitivity	15-20% [70]	0.2-1% [103] [104]
Throughput	1 fragment per reaction [70]	Millions of fragments simultaneously [102]
Mixed Infection Resolution	Limited to dominant strain(s)	Comprehensive detection of multiple species/strains [11] [5]
Discovery Power	Low; requires prior knowledge of target	High; can detect novel, rare, or unexpected pathogens [33] [45]
Quantitative Capability	Limited to semi-quantitative based on peak height	Highly quantitative based on read counts [11]
Cost-Effectiveness	Cost-effective for 1-20 targets [33]	Cost-effective for larger target numbers and sample volumes [33]

The data clearly demonstrates NGS's superior performance across all metrics critical for detecting minority variants and mixed infections. While Sanger sequencing remains useful for targeted analysis of a small number of genes where high variant frequency is expected, NGS provides overwhelming advantages for comprehensive parasite characterization [33] [70].

Experimental Evidence: NGS in Parasite Detection

Metabarcoding for Mixed Intestinal Parasite Infections

A landmark study published in Scientific Reports demonstrated NGS's capability to simultaneously detect multiple intestinal parasites using 18S rRNA metabarcoding [11]. Researchers cloned the V9 region of 18S rDNA from 11 parasite species into plasmids, created an equal concentration pool, and performed amplicon sequencing on the Illumina iSeq 100 platform. The experiment identified 434,849 reads, with all 11 parasite species successfully detected, albeit with varying read counts ranging from 0.9% for Enterobius vermicularis to 17.2% for Clonorchis sinensis [11]. This variation highlights both the comprehensive detection capability of NGS and the impact of biological factors such as DNA secondary structures on amplification efficiency.

The experimental workflow involved several critical steps: DNA extraction from preserved helminth samples and cultured protozoa, PCR amplification of the V9 region using primers 1391F and EukBR, TA cloning, plasmid linearization with restriction enzymes, limited-cycle amplification to add multiplexing indices, and final sequencing [11]. Bioinformatic analysis utilized QIIME 2, with demultiplexing, quality trimming, denoising via DADA2, and taxonomic classification against custom databases from NCBI [11]. This methodology successfully identified all species in the mixture, demonstrating NGS's power to resolve complex mixed infections that would be challenging or impossible to fully characterize with Sanger sequencing.

Enhanced Blood Parasite Detection Using Extended Barcodes

Recent research has further optimized NGS methodologies for blood parasite detection by targeting extended 18S rDNA regions. A 2025 study designed a DNA barcoding strategy targeting the V4-V9 region of 18S rDNA, which significantly outperformed the commonly used V9 region alone for species identification [14]. This approach utilized universal primers F566 and 1776R, which cover over 60% of eukaryotic organisms with fewer than three total mismatches [14].

To address the challenge of host DNA contamination in blood samples, researchers developed a sophisticated blocking strategy employing two types of blocking primers: a C3 spacer-modified oligo competing with the universal reverse primer and a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) oligo that inhibits polymerase elongation [14]. This combination selectively reduced amplification of host DNA while preserving parasite detection sensitivity. The optimized protocol successfully detected Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense, Plasmodium falciparum, and Babesia bovis in human blood samples spiked with as few as 1, 4, and 4 parasites per microliter, respectively [14]. When applied to field cattle blood samples, the method revealed multiple Theileria species co-infections in the same animal, demonstrating its practical utility for detecting complex natural infections [14].

Methodological Advances Enabling Superior Sensitivity

Unique Molecular Identifiers for Error Correction

A critical innovation enhancing NGS sensitivity is the implementation of unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), originally termed "Primer IDs" [103]. These random sequence tags are incorporated into cDNA synthesis primers prior to PCR amplification, enabling bioinformatic recognition of all sequences derived from the same original template [103]. This approach addresses two significant limitations of conventional amplicon sequencing: it establishes the true sampling depth of the viral population and enables creation of accurate template consensus sequences (TCS) that remove virtually all methodological errors [103].

The UMI workflow involves tagging individual molecules before PCR amplification, sequencing, grouping reads by UMI, and generating consensus sequences for each original molecule [103]. This process distinguishes true biological variants from PCR and sequencing errors, dramatically improving detection specificity for low-frequency variants. The statistical power for minority variant detection depends directly on the number of original genomes sequenced (the sampling depth), not the total number of reads generated [103]. For example, to detect a variant present at 1% frequency with 95% confidence, a sample size of approximately 300 viral genomes is necessary [103]. UMIs provide this critical denominator information that is otherwise obscured by PCR amplification.

Bioinformatic Algorithms for Rare Variant Detection

Sophisticated computational methods have been developed specifically to enhance rare variant detection in mixed populations. The V-Phaser algorithm exemplifies this approach, utilizing covariation (phasing) between observed variants to increase sensitivity while iteratively recalibrating base quality scores to maintain specificity [104]. This method achieved >97% sensitivity and >97% specificity on control read sets, detecting HIV-1 variants at frequencies down to 0.2% - comparable to allele-specific PCR but without requiring prior knowledge of the variants [104].

Another advanced approach involves the DADA2 algorithm, which uses a parameterized model of substitution errors to distinguish true biological variation from sequencing errors in metabarcoding studies [11]. This noise reduction method has become widely adopted in 18S rDNA metabarcoding for parasites, enabling more accurate differentiation of closely related species and strains in mixed infections [11].

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Parasite NGS Studies

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example Use Case
18S rDNA V9 Primers (1391F/EukBR)	Amplification of eukaryotic-specific barcode region	Intestinal parasite metabarcoding [11]
Extended 18S rDNA Primers (F566/1776R)	Enhanced species resolution targeting V4-V9 regions	Blood parasite identification with improved accuracy [14]
Blocking Primers (C3 spacer-modified, PNA)	Selective inhibition of host DNA amplification	Enrichment of parasite DNA in blood samples [14]
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Tagging individual molecules for error correction	Accurate detection of rare variants and precise quantification [103]
Restriction Enzymes (e.g., NcoI)	Plasmid linearization to reduce steric hindrance	Improved efficiency in clone-based sequencing approaches [11]
High-Fidelity PCR Master Mix	Accurate amplification with minimal introduced errors	Library preparation for variant detection studies [11]
Taxonomic Classification Databases (NCBI, Silva)	Reference databases for sequence identification	Species assignment in metabarcoding studies [11] [14]

Workflow and Experimental Design

The NGS workflow for detecting minority variants and mixed parasitic infections involves multiple critical steps where methodological choices significantly impact sensitivity and specificity. Beginning with sample collection, the selection of appropriate clinical specimens from primary infection sites is crucial for success [101]. For intestinal parasites, fecal samples are typically used, while blood samples require specialized host DNA depletion strategies [14] [5]. Nucleic acid extraction follows, with careful attention to methods that provide comprehensive lysis of diverse parasite types while maintaining nucleic acid integrity [11].

Library preparation represents a crucial branching point where researchers must select the most appropriate strategy for their specific goals. Amplicon sequencing targets specific genetic regions like the 18S rRNA V9 or extended V4-V9 regions, providing sensitive detection of known parasites [11] [14]. Metabarcoding approaches use universal primers to broadly detect eukaryotic pathogens without prior knowledge of specific targets [5]. The incorporation of UMIs at this stage enables precise error correction and quantification [103], while blocking primers selectively inhibit host DNA amplification to improve sensitivity in blood samples [14]. Sequencing follows on platforms such as Illumina, which offers low error rates (0.1%) critical for variant detection [101], or portable nanopore devices that enable rapid field-based sequencing despite higher error rates [14].

Bioinformatic processing involves quality control to remove low-quality sequences and contaminants, followed by sophisticated variant calling algorithms that distinguish true biological variants from sequencing errors [11] [104]. Taxonomic classification places sequences into their proper biological context, while abundance quantification provides the relative proportions of different parasites in mixed infections [11]. The final interpretation stage requires careful consideration of biological significance, distinguishing true infections from environmental contamination or clinically insignificant colonization [102].

The evidence comprehensively demonstrates that NGS technologies provide superior sensitivity for detecting minority variants and mixed parasitic infections compared to traditional Sanger sequencing. This advantage stems from both technical capabilities (massively parallel sequencing, deep coverage) and methodological innovations (UMIs, specialized bioinformatics algorithms). The dramatically lower detection threshold of NGS (0.2-1% versus 15-20% for Sanger sequencing) enables researchers to uncover the true complexity of parasitic infections, including mixed species infections, genetically diverse populations, and emerging drug-resistant variants [11] [103] [104]. As parasitic diseases continue to pose significant global health challenges, with an estimated 3.5 billion people at risk of intestinal parasite infection alone [11], these advanced detection capabilities will play an increasingly crucial role in both clinical management and public health interventions. The ongoing development of portable sequencing platforms and streamlined bioinformatic workflows promises to make these powerful technologies more accessible, ultimately transforming our approach to parasitic disease diagnosis, surveillance, and control.

For researchers in parasitology, selecting the appropriate DNA sequencing method is a critical first step that directly impacts the cost, efficiency, and depth of a study. This guide provides an objective comparison of Sanger sequencing and Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies, framing them not as competitors but as complementary tools to be matched to specific research questions.

Performance Comparison: Sanger Sequencing vs. NGS Platforms

The choice between Sanger and NGS is often dictated by the scale of the project and the required resolution. The table below summarizes the core performance characteristics of each method.

Table 1: Key Performance Indicators for Sequencing Technologies

Feature	Sanger Sequencing	Targeted NGS (Illumina/Ion Torrent)	Third-Generation Sequencing (e.g., Nanopore)
Sequencing Volume	Single DNA fragment per run [33]	Millions of fragments simultaneously (Massively parallel) [33]	Long, single-molecule reads in real-time [14]
Sensitivity (Limit of Detection)	~15–20% variant frequency [33]	As low as 1% variant frequency [4] [105]	Demonstrated for low-parasite-density infections [14]
Throughput & Multiplexing	Low throughput; not designed for multiplexing [33]	High-throughput; can multiplex hundreds of samples per run [4] [33]	Moderate to high throughput; suitable for multiplexing in field settings [14]
Best Application	Interrogating a small genomic region (≤ 20 targets) on a limited number of samples [33]	Profiling parasite communities; detecting resistance markers and low-frequency variants across hundreds of samples [4] [106]	Long-read barcoding; rapid, portable species identification in resource-limited settings [14] [23]
Cost-Effectiveness	Cost-effective for a low number of targets [33]	More cost-effective than Sanger for >20-61 targets; 86% cost reduction reported [4] [33] [23]	Cost-effective for studies requiring barcoding of more than 183 (MinION) samples [23]

Experimental Validation and Protocol Details

Sensitivity in Detecting Minor Variants

Background: The ability to detect low-abundance variants is crucial for identifying emerging drug-resistant parasite strains, which often exist as a minor fraction of the total parasite population [105].

Experimental Protocol (Malaria): A comparative study developed Targeted Amplicon Deep sequencing (TADs) protocols for six Plasmodium falciparum drug resistance genes (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch, pfcytochrome b). Researchers created artificial mixed infections using 3D7 and K1 reference strain genomic DNA. These mixtures were designed to contain minor allele frequencies down to 1% density. The samples were then sequenced on both Ion Torrent PGM and Illumina MiSeq platforms [4].

Key Results: Both NGS platforms successfully detected the minor allele at a frequency as low as 1% with a coverage depth of 500X. The coefficient of variation for this measurement was low (0.18 for Ion Torrent, 0.32 for Illumina), indicating high consistency in detecting low-frequency variants [4].

Experimental Protocol (HIV): A study on HIV-1 pretreatment drug resistance compared NGS (Ion Torrent) to Sanger sequencing in 80 treatment-naïve individuals. The mean sequencing depth for NGS was at least 10,000X, and variants were called at multiple thresholds (2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%) [105].

Key Results: The overall rate of pretreatment drug resistance (PDR) was higher with NGS at a 2% threshold (25.0%) compared to Sanger sequencing (13.8%). NGS showed a sensitivity of 87.0% at a 5% threshold, demonstrating its superior ability to uncover low-abundance drug-resistant variants that Sanger sequencing would miss [105].

Accuracy and the Need for Orthogonal Validation

A long-held practice in NGS workflows is to validate variants using Sanger sequencing. However, large-scale studies now question the necessity of this redundant and costly step for all variants.

Experimental Protocol: One study performed a systematic evaluation using exome data from 684 participants. NGS-derived variants in five genes were compared against high-throughput Sanger sequencing data from the same samples [96].

Key Results: Out of over 5,800 NGS-derived variants, only 19 were not initially validated by Sanger data. Upon re-testing with optimized primers, 17 of these 19 variants were confirmed, meaning the initial Sanger validation was incorrect. The remaining two variants had low-quality scores from the exome sequencing. This resulted in a final validation rate of 99.965% for NGS variants [96]. Another study analyzing 919 comparisons between NGS and Sanger for single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and insertion/deletion variants (indels) found 100% concordance for SNVs, suggesting that Sanger confirmation for SNVs meeting quality thresholds is unnecessarily redundant, though it may still be useful for indels [107].

Workflow Visualization: From Sample to Result

The following diagram illustrates the typical workflows for Sanger sequencing, targeted NGS, and nanopore-based barcoding, highlighting key decision points for researchers.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of sequencing projects, particularly in parasitology, relies on carefully selected reagents and protocols.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Parasite Sequencing

Item	Function/Benefit	Application Example
Blocking Primers (C3 spacer or PNA)	Suppresses amplification of host DNA (e.g., human or bovine 18S rDNA) by binding specifically to the host template and halting polymerase elongation. This enriches for parasite DNA in the sample [14].	Parasite barcoding from whole blood samples using universal 18S rDNA primers, dramatically improving sensitivity [14].
Universal 18S rDNA Primers	Amplifies a broad DNA "barcode" region from a wide range of eukaryotic parasites, allowing for comprehensive detection without prior knowledge of the specific pathogen present [14].	Metagenomic detection of novel or unexpected parasites in clinical samples. Using the V4–V9 region provides superior species resolution compared to shorter regions like V9 [14].
Multi-Amicron Panel Primers	Allows simultaneous amplification of dozens to hundreds of genomic regions of interest in a single, multiplexed reaction. This is the foundation of targeted NGS [4] [105].	Tracking a full suite of antimalarial drug resistance markers (pfcrt, pfdhfr, pfdhps, pfmdr1, pfkelch) across many samples in one sequencing run [4].
Specialized Analysis Software (e.g., paraCell)	Provides interactive visualization and analysis of complex datasets, such as single-cell RNA sequencing data from parasites, without requiring advanced programming skills from the researcher [108].	Investigating host-parasite interactions and parasite heterogeneity at the single-cell level [108].

Application-Based Selection Framework

The experimental data and workflows presented lead to a clear decision-making framework:

• Use Sanger Sequencing to confirm a known variant in a few genes or for a small number of samples. It is a robust, cost-effective tool for focused questions [33].
• Choose Targeted NGS (Illumina/Ion Torrent) when your research requires:
  • Detecting low-frequency variants (<20%), such as emerging drug resistance [4] [105].
  • Scalability, to sequence hundreds of samples or dozens of genetic loci simultaneously and cost-effectively [4] [33].
  • Deep sequencing to achieve high confidence in variant calling across a population [96] [107].
• Opt for Long-Read Sequencing (Nanopore) for applications that need:
  • Rapid, portable pathogen identification in field settings [14].
  • Long-range barcoding for superior species-level resolution from complex samples [14] [23].
  • Real-time data analysis to inform immediate decision-making.

By aligning the technical capabilities of each sequencing tool with the specific goals of the research question, scientists can design more efficient, powerful, and insightful studies in parasitology and drug development.

Conclusion

The choice between Sanger sequencing and NGS for parasite barcoding is not a matter of one being universally superior, but rather of selecting the right tool for the specific research objective. Sanger sequencing remains the gold standard for its simplicity, long read accuracy, and cost-effectiveness for validating findings and targeting single genes in small sample sets. In contrast, NGS is indispensable for large-scale, high-throughput studies, offering unparalleled depth to detect minority variants, resolve polyclonal infections, and conduct untargeted discovery. The integration of long-read technologies like Nanopore sequencing further enhances the ability to tackle complex genomic regions. Future directions point toward the increased use of hybrid strategies, where NGS's discovery power is validated by Sanger's precision, and the application of these combined tools to accelerate drug development, understand drug resistance mechanisms, and improve global surveillance of parasitic diseases. As sequencing costs continue to fall and bioinformatics tools become more accessible, NGS is poised to become the foundational technology for the next generation of breakthroughs in parasitology.

References

• 1. Sanger Sequencing: Introduction, Principle, and Protocol [https://www.cd-genomics.com/blog/sanger-sequencing-introduction-principle-and-protocol/]
• 2. Sanger sequencing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanger_sequencing]
• 3. What is Sanger sequencing? [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/sequencing/sequencing-learning-center/capillary-electrophoresis-information/what-is-sanger-sequencing.html]
• 4. Comparative analysis of targeted next-generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-09474-5]
• 5. Metabarcoding in gut protozoology [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1471492224003040]
• 6. Guidelines for Sanger sequencing and molecular assay ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7649556/]
• 7. 18S rDNA next-generation sequencing uncovers the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12225251/]
• 8. Enhanced blood parasite species identification using V4–V9 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12639079/]
• 9. Sanger Sequencing: Experimental Design and Sample ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/blog/sanger-sequencing-sample-prepation-experimental-design/]
• 10. Comparison of a multiplex PCR with DNA barcoding for ... [https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-024-06255-z]
• 11. Optimization of 18 S rRNA metabarcoding for the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76304-1]
• 12. Standardization of 16S rRNA gene sequencing using ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1517208/full]
• 13. Next-Generation DNA Barcoding for Fish Identification ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/15/4/774]
• 14. Enhanced blood parasite species identification using V4– ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-25108-y]
• 15. An expanded method for malaria parasite genetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12290220/]
• 16. Custom barcoded primers for influenza A nanopore ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1545032/full]
• 17. DNA barcoding [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_barcoding]
• 18. DNA barcoding of parasites and invertebrate disease vectors [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S147149220300271X]
• 19. Status and prospects of DNA barcoding in medically ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1471492214001603]
• 20. Next-generation DNA barcoding [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4276293/]
• 21. Next-Generation Sequencers vs. Sanger ... [https://www.labx.com/resources/next-generation-sequencers-vs-sanger-sequencers-key-differences/5597]
• 22. Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: Current Trends ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10376292/]
• 23. Comparing the accuracy and efficiency of third generation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405985423000228]
• 24. Simultaneous Detection of Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC356880/]
• 25. Amplicon-based next-generation sequencing of eukaryotic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8819130/]
• 26. Evaluation of Next-Generation Sequencing Applied to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9414878/]
• 27. Uncovering the genetic diversity of Giardia intestinalis in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9066983/]
• 28. Detection of Giardia duodenalis Assemblages A and B in ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0001776]
• 29. Barcoding Genetically Distinct Plasmodium falciparum Strains ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9600763/]
• 30. Cellular barcoding of protozoan pathogens reveals the within ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9421581/]
• 31. Next‐Generation Sequencing in Infectious‐Disease Diagnostics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12658282/]
• 32. Sanger sequencing — Knowledge Hub [https://www.genomicseducation.hee.nhs.uk/genotes/knowledge-hub/sanger-sequencing/]
• 33. NGS vs Sanger Sequencing [https://www.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation-sequencing/beginners/advantages/ngs-vs-sanger.html]
• 34. Sanger Sequencing: Introduction, Workflow, and Applications [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-sanger-sequencing-introduction-workflow-and-applications.html]
• 35. How does the efficiency of Nanopore compare to Illumina ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772735125000666]
• 36. In-silico DNA barcoding surpasses whole genome ... - Sciety [https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7651154/v1?utm_source=sciety_labs_article_page]
• 37. Next-Generation Sequencing: Principles, Applications, & ... [https://www.excedr.com/blog/next-generation-sequencing-101]
• 38. Sanger Sequencing Steps & Method [https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/protocol/genomics/sequencing/sanger-sequencing?srsltid=AfmBOootAASy-J6jg9Bq274WcJCuMo44cG5ZV6ULxLOfizRY8ZdhbJ-F]
• 39. How Does DNA Barcoding Work? A Practical Workflow Guide [https://www.cd-genomics.com/pop-genomics/pop-genomics/resources/dna-barcoding-workflow-guide.html]
• 40. Barcodes for Sanger Sequencing - Sample Labelling [https://web.genewiz.com/sanger/labellingyoursamples]
• 41. Comparison of the diagnostic capabilities of tNGS and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1578939/full]
• 42. Comparative of metagenomic and targeted next-generation ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1534519/full]
• 43. The significance of metagenomic next-generation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12198251/]
• 44. Comparative diagnostic performance of metagenomic and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-11834-w]
• 45. Applications of the powerful next-generation sequencing ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0882401025004711]
• 46. Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy of Metagenomic Next ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445325002610]
• 47. Sanger sequencing and deconvolution of polyclonal infections [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11031737/]
• 48. Comparison of molecular diagnostic approaches for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9153396/]
• 49. A comprehensive fungi-specific 18S rRNA gene sequence ... [https://bmcmicrobiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12866-018-1331-4]
• 50. Design and validation of four new primers for next-generation ... [https://sueishaqlab.org/portfolio/design-and-validation-of-four-new-primers-for-next-generation-sequencing-to-target-the-18s-rrna-gene-of-gastrointestinal-ciliate-protozoa/]
• 51. Systematic Design of 18S rRNA Gene Primers for Determining ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3995771/]
• 52. Typing Plasmodium yoelii microsatellites using a simple ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2039898/]
• 53. The Future of Sanger Sequencing: Technical Development ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/blog/sanger-sequencing-technology-innovation/]
• 54. Overlap Extension Barcoding for the Next Generation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41108]
• 55. Application of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171117/]
• 56. Systematic Comparison of Computational Tools for Sanger ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10854981/]
• 57. Multiplex long-amplicon sequencing for comprehensive ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12539163/]
• 58. Comparative Analysis of Plasmodium falciparum Genotyping ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8765236/]
• 59. Applying next-generation sequencing to track falciparum ... [https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-019-2880-1]
• 60. Performance of molecular inversion probe DR23K and ... [https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-025-05441-3]
• 61. Rapid multiplexed nanopore amplicon sequencing to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20925-7]
• 62. Pooled Deep Sequencing of Plasmodium falciparum Isolates [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3836461/]
• 63. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) vs. Sanger ... [https://www.labmanager.com/next-generation-sequencing-ngs-vs-sanger-sequencing-which-dna-sequencing-method-is-right-for-you-33659]
• 64. From Sanger to Oxford Nanopore MinION Technology [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12153771/]
• 65. NGS vs Sanger Sequencing [https://sourcebioscience.com/ngs-v-sanger-sequencing/]
• 66. Multi-Laboratory Comparison of Next-Generation to Sanger ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7411816/]
• 67. 18S/28S rDNA metabarcoding identifies Cryptosporidium ... [https://parasitesandvectors.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13071-025-07043-z]
• 68. Performance comparison of next generation sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58544-z]
• 69. Development of reference-based model for improved ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996925007185]
• 70. Sanger Sequencing vs. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-sanger-sequencing-vs-next-generation-sequencing.html]
• 71. Sanger sequencing vs NGS - Integra Biosciences [https://www.integra-biosciences.com/united-states/en/blog/article/sanger-sequencing-vs-ngs]
• 72. A Primer on NGS Technologies and Their Specs (2025) [https://blog.latch.bio/p/a-primer-on-ngs-technologies-and]
• 73. Thermal-bias PCR: generation of amplicon libraries without ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12558157/]
• 74. Comparison of Sanger and next generation sequencing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25662433/]
• 75. Analyzing Sanger Sequencing Data [https://blog.genewiz.com/analyzing-sanger-sequencing-data]
• 76. Genomic analysis of Plasmodium vivax field isolates ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08276-5]
• 77. Genetic surveillance reveals low but sustained malaria ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12116912/]
• 78. Optimization of 16S RNA Sequencing and Evaluation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40941662/]
• 79. Comparative analysis of illumina and oxford nanopore ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18768-3]
• 80. Comparative analysis of Illumina, PacBio, and nanopore ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiomes/articles/10.3389/frmbi.2025.1587712/full]
• 81. Next-generation sequencing: 2025 Revolution [https://lifebit.ai/blog/next-generation-sequencing/]
• 82. DNA Sequencing: How to Choose the Right Technology [https://frontlinegenomics.com/dna-sequencing-how-to-choose-the-right-technology/]
• 83. Long-Read Sequencing and Structural Variant Detection [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12293859/]
• 84. A New Look at Next-Generation Sequencing [https://compassbioinfo.com/blog/next-generation-sequencing/]
• 85. DNA barcoding shows that Toxocara cati infecting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304401725001256]
• 86. The Next-Generation Sequencing Quality Initiative and ... [https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/31/13/24-1175_article]
• 87. Wild-type Blocking PCR Combined with Sanger ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39248491/]
• 88. Analytical and clinical validation of a NGS panel in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11464656/]
• 89. Next-Generation Sequencing in High-Sensitive Detection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157820303305]
• 90. Increasing the sensitivity of low-level mutations using ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/blog/behindthebench/increasing-the-sensitivity-of-low-level-mutations-using-cold-pcr/]
• 91. Sanger Sequencing vs. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) [https://www.genscript.com/gene-news/sanger-sequencing-vs-next-generation-sequencing.html]
• 92. Comparing Gold-Standard Sanger Sequencing with Two ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11631799/]
• 93. The $100 Genome: Where's the Limit? [https://frontlinegenomics.com/the-100-genome-wheres-the-limit/]
• 94. Sanger DNA Sequencing: Service Rates [https://dnacore.mgh.harvard.edu/new-cgi-bin/site/pages/sequencing_pages/seq.rates.partners.jsp;jsessionid=1AAC009170537DE0C7771260AC177994]
• 95. Cost analysis of standard Sanger sequencing versus next ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673616323224]
• 96. Systematic Evaluation of Sanger Validation of NextGen ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4878677/]
• 97. Sanger sequencing is no longer always necessary based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85182-w]
• 98. Sanger Sequencing vs. Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) [https://www.molecularcloud.org/p/sanger-sequencing-vs.-next-generation-sequencing-ngs-1217]
• 99. Using Next-Generation Sequencing for DNA Barcoding [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5217108/]
• 100. Next generation amplicon sequencing improves detection ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1567134818309420]
• 101. Application of metagenomic next-generation sequencing in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11604630/]
• 102. Metagenomic Next Generation Sequencing: How Does It ... [https://asm.org/articles/2019/november/metagenomic-next-generation-sequencing-how-does-it]
• 103. Next Generation Sequencing and the Detection of Minor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7472098/]
• 104. Highly Sensitive and Specific Detection of Rare Variants in ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002417]
• 105. A Sensitivity and Consistency Comparison Between Next- ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11599105/]
• 106. Ten simple rules for implementing deep amplicon ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020751925002085]
• 107. Confirming Variants in Next-Generation Sequencing Panel ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157815000768]
• 108. paraCell: a novel software tool for the interactive analysis and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11840555/]