Project description:High-throughput RNA-sequencing has become the gold standard method for whole-transcriptome gene expression analysis, and is widely used in numerous applications to study cell and tissue transcriptomes. It is also being increasingly used in a number of clinical applications, including expression profiling for diagnostics and alternative transcript detection. However, despite its many advantages, RNA sequencing can be challenging in some situations, for instance in cases of low input amounts or degraded RNA samples. Several protocols have been proposed to overcome these challenges, and many are available as commercial kits. In this study, we systematically test three recent commercial technologies for RNA-seq library preparation (TruSeq, SMARTer and SMARTer Ultra-Low) on human biological reference materials, using standard (1?mg), low (100?ng and 10?ng) and ultra-low (<1?ng) input amounts, and for mRNA and total RNA, stranded and unstranded. The results are analyzed using read quality and alignment metrics, gene detection and differential gene expression metrics. Overall, we show that the TruSeq kit performs well with an input amount of 100?ng, while the SMARTer kit shows decreased performance for inputs of 100 and 10?ng, and the SMARTer Ultra-Low kit performs relatively well for input amounts <1?ng. All the results are discussed in detail, and we provide guidelines for biologists for the selection of an RNA-seq library preparation kit.
Project description:We comparison the performance of three different library for transcriptome analysis. Overall design: mRNA profile of 3 different library samples were generated from 2 different patient's peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs).
Project description:Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized the study of small RNAs (sRNAs) on a genome-wide scale. However, classical sRNA library preparation methods introduce serious bias, mainly during adapter ligation steps. Several types of sRNA including plant microRNAs (miRNA), piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNA) in insects, nematodes and mammals, and small interfering RNAs (siRNA) in insects and plants contain a 2'-O-methyl (2'-OMe) modification at their 3' terminal nucleotide. This inhibits 3' adapter ligation and makes library preparation particularly challenging. To reduce bias, the NEBNext kit (New England Biolabs) uses polyethylene glycol (PEG), the NEXTflex V2 kit (BIOO Scientific) uses both randomised adapters and PEG, and the novel SMARTer (Clontech) and CATS (Diagenode) kits avoid ligation altogether. Here we compared these methods with Illumina's classical TruSeq protocol regarding the detection of normal and 2' OMe RNAs. In addition, we modified the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols to identify conditions that improve performance.Among the five kits tested with their respective standard protocols, the SMARTer and CATS kits had the lowest levels of bias but also had a strong formation of side products, and as a result performed relatively poorly with biological samples; NEXTflex detected the largest numbers of different miRNAs. The use of a novel type of randomised adapters called MidRand-Like (MRL) adapters and PEG improved the detection of 2' OMe RNAs both in the TruSeq as well as in the NEXTflex protocol.While it is commonly accepted that biases in sRNA library preparation protocols are mainly due to adapter ligation steps, the ligation-free protocols were not the best performing methods. Our modified versions of the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols provide an improved tool for the study of 2' OMe RNAs.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Metatranscriptomics is rapidly expanding our knowledge of gene expression patterns and pathway dynamics in natural microbial communities. However, to cope with the challenges of environmental sampling, various rRNA removal and cDNA synthesis methods have been applied in published microbial metatranscriptomic studies, making comparisons arduous. Whereas efficiency and biases introduced by rRNA removal methods have been relatively well explored, the impact of cDNA synthesis and library preparation on transcript abundance remains poorly characterized. The evaluation of potential biases introduced at this step is challenging for metatranscriptomic samples, where data analyses are complex, for example because of the lack of reference genomes. RESULTS: Herein, we tested four cDNA synthesis and Illumina library preparation protocols on a simplified mixture of total RNA extracted from four bacterial species. In parallel, RNA from each microbe was tested individually. cDNA synthesis was performed on rRNA depleted samples using the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Preparation, the SMARTer Stranded RNA-Seq, or the Ovation RNA-Seq V2 System. A fourth experiment was made directly from total RNA using the Encore Complete Prokaryotic RNA-Seq. The obtained sequencing data were analyzed for: library complexity and reproducibility; rRNA removal efficiency and bias; the number of genes detected; coverage uniformity; and the impact of protocols on expression biases. Significant variations, especially in organism representation and gene expression patterns, were observed among the four methods. TruSeq generally performed best, but is limited by its requirement of hundreds of nanograms of total RNA. The SMARTer method appears the best solution for smaller amounts of input RNA. For very low amounts of RNA, the Ovation System provides the only option; however, the observed biases emphasized its limitations for quantitative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: cDNA and library preparation methods may affect the outcome and interpretation of metatranscriptomic data. The most appropriate method should be chosen based on the available quantity of input RNA and the quantitative or non-quantitative objectives of the study. When low amounts of RNA are available, as in most metatranscriptomic studies, the SMARTer method seems to be the best compromise to obtain reliable results. This study emphasized the difficulty in comparing metatranscriptomic studies performed using different methods.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cell type-specific ribosome-pulldown has become an increasingly popular method for analysis of gene expression. It allows for expression analysis from intact tissues and monitoring of protein synthesis in vivo. However, while its utility has been assessed, technical aspects related to sequencing of these samples, often starting with a smaller amount of RNA, have not been reported. In this study, we evaluated the performance of five library prep protocols for ribosome-associated mRNAs when only 250 pg-4 ng of total RNA are used. RESULTS:We obtained total and RiboTag-IP RNA, in three biological replicates. We compared 5 methods of library preparation for Illumina Next Generation sequencing: NuGEN Ovation RNA-Seq system V2 Kit, TaKaRa SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit, TaKaRa SMART-Seq v4 Ultra Low Input RNA Kit, Illumina TruSeq RNA Library Prep Kit v2 and NEBNext® Ultra™ Directional RNA Library Prep Kit using slightly modified protocols each with 4 ng of total RNA. An additional set of samples was processed using the TruSeq kit with 70 ng, as a 'gold standard' control and the SMART-Seq v4 with 250 pg of total RNA. TruSeq-processed samples had the best metrics overall, with similar results for the 4 ng and 70 ng samples. The results of the SMART-Seq v4 processed samples were similar to TruSeq (Spearman correlation >?0.8) despite using lower amount of input RNA. All RiboTag-IP samples had an increase in the intronic reads compared with the corresponding whole tissue, suggesting that the IP captures some immature mRNAs. The SMARTer-processed samples had a higher representation of ribosomal and non-coding RNAs leading to lower representation of protein coding mRNA. The enrichment or depletion of IP samples compared to corresponding input RNA was similar across all kits except for SMARTer kit. CONCLUSION:RiboTag-seq can be performed successfully with as little as 250 pg of total RNA when using the SMART-Seq v4 kit and 4 ng when using the modified protocols of other library preparation kits. The SMART-Seq v4 and TruSeq kits resulted in the highest quality libraries. RiboTag IP RNA contains some immature transcripts.
Project description:The industry of next-generation sequencing is constantly evolving, with novel library preparation methods and new sequencing machines being released by the major sequencing technology companies annually. The Illumina TruSeq v2 library preparation method was the most widely used kit and the market leader; however, it has now been discontinued, and in 2013 was replaced by the TruSeq Nano and TruSeq PCR-free methods, leaving a gap in knowledge regarding which is the most appropriate library preparation method to use. Here, we used isolates from the pathogenic fungi Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii and sequenced them using the existing TruSeq DNA v2 kit (Illumina), along with two new kits: the TruSeq Nano DNA kit (Illumina) and the NEBNext Ultra DNA kit (New England Biolabs) to provide a comparison. Compared to the original TruSeq DNA v2 kit, both newer kits gave equivalent or better sequencing data, with increased coverage. When comparing the two newer kits, we found little difference in cost and workflow, with the NEBNext Ultra both slightly cheaper and faster than the TruSeq Nano. However, the quality of data generated using the TruSeq Nano DNA kit was superior due to higher coverage at regions of low GC content, and more SNPs identified. Researchers should therefore evaluate their resources and the type of application (and hence data quality) being considered when ultimately deciding on which library prep method to use.
Project description:Library preparation is a key step in sequencing. For RNA sequencing there are advantages to both strand specificity and working with minute starting material, yet until recently there was no kit available enabling both. The Illumina TruSeq stranded mRNA Sample Preparation kit (TruSeq) requires abundant starting material while the Takara Bio SMART-Seq v4 Ultra Low Input RNA kit (V4) sacrifices strand specificity. The SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit v2 - Pico Input Mammalian (Pico) by Takara Bio claims to overcome these limitations. Comparative evaluation of these kits is important for selecting the appropriate protocol. We compared the three kits in a realistic differential expression analysis. We prepared and sequenced samples from two experimental conditions of biological interest with each of the three kits. We report differences between the kits at the level of differential gene expression; for example, the Pico kit results in 55% fewer differentially expressed genes than TruSeq. Nevertheless, the agreement of the observed enriched pathways suggests that comparable functional results can be obtained. In summary we conclude that the Pico kit sufficiently reproduces the results of the other kits at the level of pathway analysis while providing a combination of options that is not available in the other kits.
Project description:Here we demonstrate a method for unbiased multiplexed deep sequencing of RNA and DNA libraries using a novel, efficient and adaptable barcoding strategy called Post Amplification Ligation-Mediated (PALM). PALM barcoding is performed as the very last step of library preparation, eliminating a potential barcode-induced bias and allowing the flexibility to synthesize as many barcodes as needed. We sequenced PALM barcoded micro RNA (miRNA) and DNA reference samples and evaluated the quantitative barcode-induced bias in comparison to the same reference samples prepared using the Illumina TruSeq barcoding strategy. The Illumina TruSeq small RNA strategy introduces the barcode during the PCR step using differentially barcoded primers, while the TruSeq DNA strategy introduces the barcode before the PCR step by ligation of differentially barcoded adaptors. Results show virtually no bias between the differentially barcoded miRNA and DNA samples, both for the PALM and the TruSeq sample preparation methods. We also multiplexed miRNA reference samples using a pre-PCR barcode ligation. This barcoding strategy results in significant bias.
Project description:A newly-developed platform, the Illumina TruSeq Methyl Capture EPIC library prep (TruSeq EPIC), builds on the content of the Infinium MethylationEPIC Beadchip Microarray (EPIC-array) and leverages the power of next-generation sequencing for targeted bisulphite sequencing. We empirically examined the performance of TruSeq EPIC and EPIC-array in assessing genome-wide DNA methylation in breast tissue samples. TruSeq EPIC provided data with a much higher density in the regions when compared to EPIC-array (~2.74 million CpGs with at least 10X coverage vs ~752 K CpGs, respectively). Approximately 398 K CpGs were common and measured across the two platforms in every sample. Overall, there was high concordance in methylation levels between the two platforms (Pearson correlation r = 0.98, P < 0.0001). However, we observed that TruSeq EPIC measurements provided a wider dynamic range and likely a higher quantitative sensitivity for CpGs that were either hypo- or hyper-methylated (β close to 0 or 1, respectively). In addition, when comparing different breast tissue types TruSeq EPIC identified more differentially methylated CpGs than EPIC-array, not only out of additional sites interrogated by TruSeq EPIC alone, but also out of common sites interrogated by both platforms. Our results suggest that both platforms show high reproducibility and reliability in genome-wide DNA methylation profiling, while TruSeq EPIC had a significant improvement over EPIC-array regarding genomic resolution and coverage. The wider dynamic range and likely higher precision of the estimates by the TruSeq EPIC may lead to the identification of novel differentially methylated markers that are associated with disease risk.