Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chrisi.hahni
    Junior Member
    • Mar 2019
    • 3

    reduced representation bisulfite seq MspI library prep - non target reads?

    Hi,

    Just started this again in the Epigenetics section (originally posted in Bioinformatics here), because I realized it's probably a better fit here - sorry for double-posting - redirected the other one to here.

    I've been wondering about the proportion of 'non-target' reads in a RRBS library, i.e. reads that I don't think are associated with a MspI restriction site but still end up in my dataset. I would really appreciate if anyone could share their experience with respect to this - some details about my data below - thanks!

    The library was prepared with MspI digestion with the NEXTFLEX® Bisulfite Library Prep Kit for Illumina, and sequenced paired-end on Illumina Miseq.

    I was expecting that most of my reads had remnants of the MspI cutsite at the start, so I wrote a little script to check that. The expectation is that forward reads should start with 'CGG' or 'TGG', if the first 'C' was methylated or not, respectively. For the reverse reads I was expecting mainly 'CAA', but also a few 'CGA' (unmethylated cytosines were used for end-repair, and I am assuming that bisulfite conversion rate is not 100%), as well as a few 'CAG' or 'CGG' (theoretically possible).
    So, ideally I should have the following combinations (forward - reverse) - please correct me if I am wrong:
    CGG-CAA
    TGG-CAA
    CGG-CGA
    TGG-CGA
    CGG-CAG
    TGG-CAG
    CGG-CGG
    TGG-CGG

    My expectations were met in the way that CGG-CAA and TGG-CAA was by far the most common, ~20% of read pairs and ~6% of read pairs, respectively. The other combinations account for less than 1% in total. What puzzles me though is that I only get ~30% read pairs that have any of the above patterns.

    I figured that perhaps some of the fragments I get after the MspI digestion are somehow sheared during the library prep and loose the cutsite on one side, so I relaxed the search criteria to also count read pairs that have the expected pattern only in the forward read OR in the reverse read. An additional ~28% of the read pairs fell into this category.

    Which leaves me with >40% of read pairs that don't have any of the expected patterns, neither in the forward nor the reverse read.

    So, my question: Is this normal? Sure there will be some sequencing error, but the read quality is very good overall and the error rate should be very low at the start of the reads, so that can't affect 40% reads. Am I missing something here?

    Thanks in advance for your help!

    cheers,
    Christoph

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • SEQadmin2
    Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
    by SEQadmin2



    Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
    ...
    07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
  • SEQadmin2
    Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
    by SEQadmin2



    Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

    There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
    07-08-2026, 05:17 AM
  • GATTACAT
    Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
    by GATTACAT
    Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
    07-01-2026, 11:43 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-13-2026, 10:26 AM
0 responses
24 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
0 responses
34 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-08-2026, 10:08 AM
0 responses
21 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Started by SEQadmin2, 07-07-2026, 11:05 AM
0 responses
34 views
0 reactions
Last Post SEQadmin2  
Working...