Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • sc10021
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2010
    • 6

    problem with mRNA multiplex libraries

    I have been trying to generate mRNA-SEQ multiplex libraries using the multiplex kit from Illumina but my end repair, dA-tailing and ligation reagents are from NEB labs. I have no problem generating a smear post PCR if I use the standard Illumina PE reagents but do not see any PCR smears using the multiplex kit. I cannot see what is the difference in the protocol except using different adapters and primers. Can anyone help please? Thanks
  • gford
    Junior Member
    • Sep 2009
    • 3

    #2
    re: problem with mRNA multiplex libraries

    I've just finished making 300 bp indexed paired end mRNA-seq libraries using these reagents and saw the expected smears on a Bioanalyzer, though they haven't been sequenced yet.

    Comment

    • josdegraaf
      Member
      • Mar 2010
      • 33

      #3
      How many pcr rounds did you both use?

      Comment

      • gford
        Junior Member
        • Sep 2009
        • 3

        #4
        I titrated the number of Phusion PCR cycles to 17 for one sample, and 19 on the remaining 4.

        Comment

        • JMorlan
          Junior Member
          • Oct 2010
          • 4

          #5
          We recently completed an RNA-seq study combining Illumina's RNA-Seq protocol and multiplex kit and running on the GAIIx. Our data quality was excellent in terms of total read yield, %Q30, % unique mapping, etc. The only caveat is that library yields are rather dramatically reduced (a few were right at 10 nM post-PCR) compared to the standard protocol but we always had more than enough to cluster.

          Illumina has confirmed with us that the multiplex kit reduces library yields (hence the increase to 18 cycles in the protocol).

          I would recommend that you quantitate rather precisely (qPCR or PicoGreen) as you may just have low-yield libraries.

          Incidentally, we also use a "Home-Brew" version of Illumina's RNA-Seq kit, with reagents/oligos purchased from 3rd-party suppliers (the Illumina kits are a bit expensive) so I don't think it's a problem that you are using NEB kits.

          -John

          Comment

          • josdegraaf
            Member
            • Mar 2010
            • 33

            #6
            We also did this several times now, using NEB as well as Illumina reagents and it works fine, we also had low yields but more then enough.

            Comment

            • amango
              Member
              • Dec 2009
              • 17

              #7
              problems with indexed paired-end mRNA-seq

              JMorlan, gford, josdegraaf and anyone else,
              I am working on a 'homemade' paired-end indexed mRNA-seq protocol. I am having trouble amplifying my adapter-ligated library (or maybe I'm having trouble with ligation). Would you be willing to send me your protocol and adapter & PCR sequences?

              I am using the following adapter sequences, derived from another SEQanswers post (http://seqanswers.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=13). 6-bp index tags are denoted by NNNNNN.

              PEMx1 5’-ACACTCTTTCCCTACACGACGCTCTTCCGATCTNNNNNN*T
              PEMx2 5’-pnnnnnnAGATCGGAAGAGCGGTTCAGCAGGAATGCCGAG

              I plan to ligate different unique-index adapter set to my different libraries. And then enrich all libraries with these universal primers:

              PCR PE1 5’-CAAGCAGAAGACGGCATACGAGATCGGTCTCGGCATTCCTGCTGAAC CGCTCTTCCGATCT
              PCR PE2 5' - AATGATACGGCGACCACCGAGATCTACACTCTTTCCCTACACGA CGCTCTTCCGATCT

              Am I correct that I do not need any PCR primers specific to my indexed adapters?

              Any help would be appreciated!
              Last edited by amango; 01-11-2011, 03:29 PM. Reason: addressed too narrowly

              Comment

              • JMorlan
                Junior Member
                • Oct 2010
                • 4

                #8
                Hi amango,

                I should clarify that we did not use our 'Homebrew' RNA-Seq protocol on the multiplexing study I mentioned in my earlier post. For multiplexing we used Illumina's now obsolete Multiplexing Sample Preparation Oligonucleotide Kit. The protocol can be found on Illumina's website.

                From your sequences it looks as if you are trying to have the barcode incorporated into the read itself. Just be aware that Illumina does not recommend this strategy (although that does not mean it can't be done).

                To answer your question, since you are just adding a barcode to the end of your adapters, I would imagine you should be able to use the standard Illumina primers.

                As for the problems you are having, some questions for you:

                -Are you annealing your adapter oligos together (for example, with heating, slow-cooling) before you use them in ligation?
                -Have you estimated the concentration of annealed adapter to use in ligation relative to your input template?

                FYI, Illumina's new TruSeq RNA-Seq kits have multiplexing capability built in and are much less expensive than their earlier RNA-Seq Kits on a per sample basis (about $66/sample by my figuring). You might want to give that a try if you are still hitting a wall with your homebrew.

                Good Luck,

                JMorlan

                Comment

                • jowenMIT
                  Junior Member
                  • Oct 2009
                  • 2

                  #9
                  I agree with Jmorlan about properly annealing the adapters. I forgot to do this with some homemade adapters, and it resulted in an almost complete lack of proper ligation.

                  Comment

                  Latest Articles

                  Collapse

                  • 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
                  • SEQadmin2
                    Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
                    by SEQadmin2


                    I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

                    Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
                    06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

                  ad_right_rmr

                  Collapse

                  News

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 11:08 AM
                  0 responses
                  6 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
                  0 responses
                  11 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
                  0 responses
                  19 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
                  0 responses
                  53 views
                  0 reactions
                  Last Post SEQadmin2  
                  Working...