Influence of low-input RNA from FF and FFPE samples on gene expression quantification by NanoString, microarray and RNA-seq: a comparative study
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Mus musculus
PROVIDER: GSE117678 | GEO | 2024/07/19
REPOSITORIES: GEO
Similar Datasets
Project description:Purpose: The goals of this study is to determine the best method of gene expression quantification (RNA-seq, Microarray, NanoString) and amplification kits adapted to low-input and/or low-quality RNA samples (FFPE samples) Methods: Mouse bladder cancer cell line (mouse bladder cancer cell line, BC57) and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium were fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin (FFPE), andfesh frozen (FF) in liquid nitrogen. The total RNA of these 4 samples were tested by 3 technologies (NanoString, RNA-seq and Microarray) and the results were compared to its reference (high-quality and high-input RNA of mouse bladder cancer cell line and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium). For NanoString with low-input RNA samples, each sample was tested by NanoString quantification after amplification by SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian and Ovation SoLo NuGEN RNA-seq System, and NanoString based on PCR approach with three input quantities: 50pg, 250pg and 2ng of total RNA, except for NanoString quantification after amplification by SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian kit for which the minimum recommended quantity was 250pg of total RNA. NanoString direct quantification was also done for FF and FFPE samples at high amount (50ng of total RNA) and results obtained from FF samples were considered as the reference. To determine which is the method for NanoString technology, low-input and low-quality RNA samples, we performed NanoString control quality metrics, principal component analysis, and a differential analysis between the mouse bladder cancer cell lines and the mouse normal mouse normal urothelium for each input quantity, amplification method and method of sample preservation (FF or FFPE). Results: The NanoString based PCR based approach is recommended for quantification of gene expression of FFPE and FF samples from 250pg of total RNA. However, NanoString quantification after amplification by SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian and Ovation SoLo NuGEN RNA-seq System is not recommended for FF and FFPE from low-input samples.
2024-07-19 | GSE117670 | GEO
Project description:Purpose: The goals of this study is to determine the best method of gene expression quantification (RNA-seq, Microarray, NanoString) and amplification kits adapted to low-input and/or low-quality RNA samples (FFPE samples) Methods: Mouse bladder cancer cell line (mouse bladder cancer cell line, BC57) and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium were fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin (FFPE), andfesh frozen (FF) in liquid nitrogen. The total RNA of these 4 samples were tested in triplicate by 3 technologies (NanoString, RNA-seq and Microarray) and the results were compared to its reference (high-quality and high-input RNA of mouse bladder cancer cell line and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium). For microarray technology, each sample was tested by two amplification kits: GeneChip Pico WT and SensationPlus with 2 input quantities: 500pg and 2ng of total RNA, except for the SensationPlus which the recommended quantity is 50ng of total RNA. Microarray data, obtained with the kit GeneChip WT Plus from 100ng of total RNA from fresh frozen samples, was considered as the reference. All samples were hybridized on MTA 1.0 microarrays. Results obtained with the two tested kits were compared to those from GeneChip WT Plus. To determine which is the best kit suitable for microarray from low-input and low-quality RNA samples, we performed microarray control quality metrics, principal component analysis, and a differential analysis between the mouse bladder cancer cell lines and the mouse normal mouse normal urothelium for each input quantity, amplification kit and method of sample preservation (FF or FFPE). Results: According to our results, the GeneChip Pico kit are recommended for quantification of gene expression of FFPE and FF samples from 2ng of total RNA. This kit is not recommended for samples below 2ng of total RNA. The kit SensationPlus is recommended for FFPE samples at 50ng of total RNA.
2024-07-19 | GSE117675 | GEO
Project description:Purpose: The goals of this study is to determine the best method of gene expression quantification (RNA-seq, Microarray, NanoString) and amplification kits adapted to low-input and/or low-quality RNA samples (FFPE samples) Methods: Mouse bladder cancer cell line (mouse bladder cancer cell line, BC57) and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium were fixed in formalin and embedded in paraffin (FFPE), andfesh frozen (FF) in liquid nitrogen. The total RNA of these 4 samples were tested in triplicate by 3 technologies (NanoString, RNA-seq and Microarray) and the results were compared to its reference (high-quality and high-input RNA of mouse bladder cancer cell line and mouse normal mouse normal urothelium). For RNA-sequencing, each sample was tested by two library contruction kits: SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian and Ovation SoLo NuGEN RNA-seq System with three input quantities: 50pg, 250pg and 2ng of total RNA, except for the SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian kit for which the minimum recommended quantity was 250pg of total RNA. RNA-seq based on poly(A) tail enrichment was considered as the reference and was done for the two FF samples at high amount (1µg of total RNA) . Results obtained with the two tested kits were compared to those based on poly(A) tail enrichment. To determine which is the best kit suitable for RNA-seq, low-input and low-quality RNA samples, we performed RNA-seq control quality metrics, principal component analysis, and a differential analysis between the mouse bladder cancer cell lines and the mouse normal mouse normal urothelium for each input quantity, library kit and method of sample preservation (FF or FFPE). Results: The Ovation SoLo NuGEN RNA-seq System library kit are recommended for quantification of gene expression of FFPE and FF samples at low-input (down to 50pg) whereas the SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit - Pico Input mammelian is only suitable for FF samples from 250pg of total RNA.
2024-07-19 | GSE117677 | GEO
Project description:Influence of low-input RNA from FF and FFPE samples on gene expression quantification by NanoString, microarray and RNA-seq: a comparative study [NanoString]
| PRJNA482861 | ENA
Project description:Influence of low-input RNA from FF and FFPE samples on gene expression quantification by NanoString, microarray and RNA-seq: a comparative study
| PRJNA483003 | ENA
Project description:BackgroundResearch grade Fresh Frozen (FF) DNA material is not yet routinely collected in clinical practice. Many hospitals, however, collect and store Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded (FFPE) tumor samples. Consequently, the sample size of whole genome cancer cohort studies could be increased tremendously by including FFPE samples, although the presence of artefacts might obfuscate the variant calling. To assess whether FFPE material can be used for cohort studies, we performed an in-depth comparison of somatic SNVs called on matching FF and FFPE Whole Genome Sequence (WGS) samples extracted from the same tumor.MethodsFour variant callers (i.e. Strelka2, Mutect2, VarScan2 and Shimmer) were used to call somatic variants on matching FF and FFPE WGS samples from a metastatic prostate tumor. Using the variants identified by these callers, we developed a heuristic to maximize the overlap between the FF and its FFPE counterpart in terms of sensitivity and precision. The proposed variant calling approach was then validated on nine matched primary samples. Finally, we assessed what fraction of the discrepancy could be attributed to intra-tumor heterogeneity (ITH), by comparing the overlap in clonal and subclonal somatic variants.ResultsWe first compared variants between an FF and an FFPE sample from a metastatic prostate tumor, showing that on average 50% of the calls in the FF are recovered in the FFPE sample, with notable differences between callers. Combining the variants of the different callers using a simple heuristic, increases both the precision and the sensitivity of the variant calling. Validating the heuristic on nine additional matched FF-FFPE samples, resulted in an average F1-score of 0.58 and an outperformance of any of the individual callers. In addition, we could show that part of the discrepancy between the FF and the FFPE samples can be attributed to ITH.ConclusionThis study illustrates that when using the correct variant calling strategy, the majority of clonal SNVs can be recovered in an FFPE sample with high precision and sensitivity. These results suggest that somatic variants derived from WGS of FFPE material can be used in cohort studies.
| S-EPMC7336445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Influence of low-input RNA from FF and FFPE samples on gene expression quantification by NanoString, microarray and RNA-seq: a comparative study [microarray]
| PRJNA482868 | ENA
Project description:Influence of low-input RNA from FF and FFPE samples on gene expression quantification by NanoString, microarray and RNA-seq: a comparative study [RNA-seq]
| PRJNA482872 | ENA
Project description:RNA-seq is an effective method for studying the transcriptome, but it can be difficult to apply to scarce or degraded RNA from fixed clinical samples, rare cell populations or cadavers. Recent studies have proposed several methods for RNA-seq of low-quality and/or low-quantity samples, but the relative merits of these methods have not been systematically analyzed. Here we compare five such methods using metrics relevant to transcriptome annotation, transcript discovery and gene expression. Using a single human RNA sample, we constructed and sequenced ten libraries with these methods and compared them against two control libraries. We found that the RNase H method performed best for chemically fragmented, low-quality RNA, and we confirmed this through analysis of actual degraded samples. RNase H can even effectively replace oligo(dT)-based methods for standard RNA-seq. SMART and NuGEN had distinct strengths for measuring low-quantity RNA. Our analysis allows biologists to select the most suitable methods and provides a benchmark for future method development.
| S-EPMC3821180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the recent precipitous decline in the cost of genome sequencing, library preparation for RNA-seq is still laborious and expensive for applications such as high throughput screening. Limited availability of RNA generated by some experimental workflows poses an additional challenge and increases the cost of RNA library preparation. In a search for low cost, automation-compatible RNA library preparation kits that maintain strand specificity and are amenable to low input RNA quantities, we systematically tested two recent commercial technologies-Swift RNA and Swift Rapid RNA, presently offered by Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT) -alongside the Illumina TruSeq stranded mRNA, the de facto standard workflow for bulk transcriptomics. We used the Universal Human Reference RNA (UHRR) (composed of equal quantities of total RNA from 10 human cancer cell lines) to benchmark gene expression in these kits, at input quantities ranging between 10 to 500 ng. We found normalized read counts between all treatment groups to be in high agreement. Compared to the Illumina TruSeq stranded mRNA kit, both Swift RNA library kits offer shorter workflow times enabled by their patented Adaptase technology. We also found the Swift RNA kit to produce the fewest number of differentially expressed genes and pathways directly attributable to input mRNA amount.
| S-EPMC8810888 | biostudies-literature