Drosophila melanogaster
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJNA234514 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRR1107934_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR1107934_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR1107935_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR1107935_2.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz | |||
| SRR1107936_1.fastq.gz | Fastqsanger.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 12 |
Similar Datasets
Project description:RNA-seq: technical variability and sampling (male)
| PRJNA234526 | ENA
Project description:RNA-seq: technical variability and sampling
| PRJNA234515 | ENA
Project description:Background: RNA-seq is revolutionizing the way we study transcriptomes. mRNA can be surveyed without prior knowledge of gene transcripts. Alternative splicing of transcript isoforms and the identification of previously unknown exons are being reported. Initial reports of differences in exon usage, and splicing between samples as well as quantitative differences among samples are beginning to surface. Biological variation has been reported to be larger than technical variation. In addition, technical variation has been reported to be in line with expectations due to random sampling. However, strategies for dealing with technical variation will differ depending on the magnitude. The size of technical variance, and the role of sampling are examined in this manuscript. Results: Independent Solexa/Illumina experiments containing technical replicates are analyzed. When coverage is low, large disagreements between technical replicates are apparent. Exon detection between technical replicates is highly variable when the coverage is less than 5 reads per nucleotide and estimates of gene expression are more likely to disagree when coverage is low. Although large disagreements in the estimates of expression are observed at all levels of coverage. Conclusions: Technical variability is too high to ignore. Technical variability results in inconsistent detection of exons at low levels of coverage. Further, the estimate of the relative abundance of a transcript can substantially disagree, even when coverage levels are high. This may be due to the low sampling fraction and if so, it will persist as an issue needing to be addressed in experimental design even as the next wave of technology produces larger numbers of reads. We provide practical recommendations for dealing with the technical variability, without dramatic cost increases.
2014-01-15 | GSE54068 | GEO
Project description:Background: RNA-seq is revolutionizing the way we study transcriptomes. mRNA can be surveyed without prior knowledge of gene transcripts. Alternative splicing of transcript isoforms and the identification of previously unknown exons are being reported. Initial reports of differences in exon usage, and splicing between samples as well as quantitative differences among samples are beginning to surface. Biological variation has been reported to be larger than technical variation. In addition, technical variation has been reported to be in line with expectations due to random sampling. However, strategies for dealing with technical variation will differ depending on the magnitude. The size of technical variance, and the role of sampling are examined in this manuscript. Results: Independent Solexa/Illumina experiments containing technical replicates are analyzed. When coverage is low, large disagreements between technical replicates are apparent. Exon detection between technical replicates is highly variable when the coverage is less than 5 reads per nucleotide and estimates of gene expression are more likely to disagree when coverage is low. Although large disagreements in the estimates of expression are observed at all levels of coverage. Conclusions: Technical variability is too high to ignore. Technical variability results in inconsistent detection of exons at low levels of coverage. Further, the estimate of the relative abundance of a transcript can substantially disagree, even when coverage levels are high. This may be due to the low sampling fraction and if so, it will persist as an issue needing to be addressed in experimental design even as the next wave of technology produces larger numbers of reads. We provide practical recommendations for dealing with the technical variability, without dramatic cost increases.
2014-01-15 | GSE54067 | GEO
Project description:The effect of sample splitting and technical replication on mRNA-seq and sRNA-seq quantification
| PRJNA339435 | ENA
Project description:Drosophila melanogaster technical error assessment using larvae and adults,
| PRJNA92287 | ENA
Project description:Background: RNA-seq is revolutionizing the way we study transcriptomes. mRNA can be surveyed without prior knowledge of gene transcripts. Alternative splicing of transcript isoforms and the identification of previously unknown exons are being reported. Initial reports of differences in exon usage, and splicing between samples as well as quantitative differences among samples are beginning to surface. Biological variation has been reported to be larger than technical variation. In addition, technical variation has been reported to be in line with expectations due to random sampling. However, strategies for dealing with technical variation will differ depending on the magnitude. The size of technical variance, and the role of sampling are examined in this manuscript. Results: Independent Solexa/Illumina experiments containing technical replicates are analyzed. When coverage is low, large disagreements between technical replicates are apparent. Exon detection between technical replicates is highly variable when the coverage is less than 5 reads per nucleotide and estimates of gene expression are more likely to disagree when coverage is low. Although large disagreements in the estimates of expression are observed at all levels of coverage. Conclusions: Technical variability is too high to ignore. Technical variability results in inconsistent detection of exons at low levels of coverage. Further, the estimate of the relative abundance of a transcript can substantially disagree, even when coverage levels are high. This may be due to the low sampling fraction and if so, it will persist as an issue needing to be addressed in experimental design even as the next wave of technology produces larger numbers of reads. We provide practical recommendations for dealing with the technical variability, without dramatic cost increases. Three independent samples of D. melanogaster female heads were collected with each sample representing a unique pool of biological material. Each sample was prepared according to manufacturer's instructions and then the same library was run on two lanes of a Solexa/Illumina flow cell, resulting in two technical replicates for each biological replicate, runs were 36 base-pair paired end.
2014-01-15 | E-GEOD-54067 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:RNA-Seq of female, male, and sex-transformed Drosophila melanogaster heads from flies heterozygous for deletions on chromosome X and 3L
| PRJNA258556 | ENA
Project description:Like-like hybridization to test 7K3 platform variability
| PRJNA93047 | ENA
Project description:Single-cell transcriptomics has recently emerged as a powerful technology to explore gene expression heterogeneity amongst single cells. Here we identify two major sources of technical variability, sampling noise and global cell-to-cell variation in sequencing efficiency. We propose noise models to correct for this and after validation by single-molecule FISH experiments, we apply these models to demonstrate that growing mES cells in 2i instead of serum/LIF globally reduces gene expression variability.
2014-04-20 | GSE54695 | GEO