Homo sapiens
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA208380 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRR900275_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR900275_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR900276_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR900276_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR900277_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 32 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:Objectives: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing. Methods and Materials: Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression. Results: Sequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12-20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17-20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5-6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20-25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and “novel” lincRNAs. Conclusion: Different library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications.
2013-08-28 | GSE47933 | GEO
Project description:Objectives: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing. Methods and Materials: Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression. Results: Sequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12-20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17-20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5-6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20-25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and “novel” lincRNAs. Conclusion: Different library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications. Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The goal was to look the impacts of protocols on results and intepretation.
2013-08-28 | E-GEOD-47933 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Study on sequencing biases introduced by library preparation step, namely by ligases. Comparison between standard Illumina protocol and improved High Definition (HD) protocol.
2012-07-23 | GSE36540 | GEO
Project description:RNAseq was done using Library protocol =Illumina TruSeq Stranded mRNA Library Preparation Kit with poly(A) selection , HiSeq 101 Cycle Paired-End Sequencing v4
2018-11-30 | GSE114575 | GEO
Project description:The goal of the study is to find the transcriptional targets downstream of Shp2-mediated signaling regulating Fgf10 production in the lacrimal gland mesenchyme. In order to look for the potential targets, we performed laser capture microdissection of the lacrimal gland mesenchyme tissue at embryonic day E14.5 from control embryos as well as mutant embryos containing neural crest-specific deletion of Shp2. After tissue harvest, RNA was extracted and conversion to cDNA as well as amplification was performed by NUGEN’s ovation kit v2. After preparation of cDNA library, each sample was sequenced using Illumina platform.
2017-12-08 | GSE103402 | GEO
Project description:In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of four RNA-Seq library preparation methods. We used three standard input protocols, the Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA and TruSeq Stranded mRNA kits, and a modified NuGEN Ovation v2 kit; and an ultra-low-input RNA protocol, the TaKaRa SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit v3. Our evaluation of these kits included quality control measures such as overall reproducibility, 5’ and 3’ end-bias, and the identification of DEGs, lncRNAs, and alternatively spliced transcripts. Overall, we found that the two Illumina kits were most similar in terms of recovering DEGs, and the Illumina, modified NuGEN, and TaKaRa kits allowed identification of a similar set of DEGs. However, we also discovered that the Illumina, NuGEN and TaKaRa kits each enriched for different sets of genes.
2019-06-27 | GSE131397 | GEO
Project description:In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of four RNA-Seq library preparation methods. We used three standard input protocols, the Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA and TruSeq Stranded mRNA kits, and a modified NuGEN Ovation v2 kit; and an ultra-low-input RNA protocol, the TaKaRa SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit v3. Our evaluation of these kits included quality control measures such as overall reproducibility, 5’ and 3’ end-bias, and the identification of DEGs, lncRNAs, and alternatively spliced transcripts. Overall, we found that the two Illumina kits were most similar in terms of recovering DEGs, and the Illumina, modified NuGEN, and TaKaRa kits allowed identification of a similar set of DEGs. However, we also discovered that the Illumina, NuGEN and TaKaRa kits each enriched for different sets of genes.
2019-06-27 | GSE131396 | GEO
Project description:The goal of the study was to compare gene expression of Robo1+/+ and Robo1-/- luminal progenitors. Total RNAs were then extracted from FACS purified luminal progenitor cells, harvested from Robo1+/+ or Robo1-/- mice (n=3 per genotype, two animals per n) using TRIreagent LS (Sigma, T3934). Poly(A)+ RNA sequencing libraries were made from each sample using the TruSeq RNA library preparation kit v.1 (Illumina). Illumina RNA PolyA library preparation guide. A total of 6 libraries were created by PCR amplification with Illumina barcoding primers using kit recommended conditions and quantified using a Bioanalyzer DNA 1000 kit (Agilent).
2021-10-12 | GSE164707 | GEO
Project description:Study on sequencing biases introduced by library preparation step, namely by ligases. Comparison between standard Illumina protocol and improved High Definition (HD) protocol. Four replicates for N21 (21 random nucleotides), one replicate for N9 (9 random nucleotides), using either standard Illumina protocol or HD protocol
2012-07-23 | E-GEOD-36540 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:Total RNA was isolated from mouse Asxl2-/- and WT LK cells following standard protocol with TRIZol reagent (Life Technologies) followed by RNA library preparation with the Illumina TruSeq strand-specific mRNA sample preparation system. All RNA-seq libraries were sequenced with a read length of single-end 75bp using the Illumina NextSeq 500, and final of over 45 million reads per sample.
2018-03-08 | GSE97021 | GEO