Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HMW tail in the library. Remove or leave and sequence?

    Hi there,
    Skipping all the suffering.. I now have my libraries for ChIPs-Seq: good looking peaks, but also a high molecular weight something on the right of the upper marker Worth to notice, that only IPd samples have this peak, inputs do not have it.
    PCR conditions:
    - inputs ~2-2.5 ng, 12 cycles;
    - IPs 0.5-1 ng, 15 cycles - all withing the recommended range in the kit.

    Beads carryover? I have noticed that some beads are not sticking to the magnet. But I leave 2.5 uL behind not to aspirate these beads. Repeated treatment on the magnet did not help. I was thinking, may be my beads decomposed and there are tiny speckles I can not separate? I spinned some libraries 15 min 15000 rpm - does not help.

    Second size-selection on some libraries diluted to ~100 pg/uL did not help either (may be DNA is too diluted for Ampure beads?)


    I found this thread to be very useful,
    Techniques and protocol discussions on sample preparation, library generation, methods and ideas


    but as it is quite old, may somebody else can tell me more on what that tail is and how "dangerous" it is for the sequencing? The sequencing facility proposes to do a trail with MiSeq and then if the libraries perform OK, the run on NovaSeq. Reasonable, but superexpensive. May be not worth it (more expensive than the new prep).

    ssing did an interesting test. They denatured the samples and then checked them on gel - no HMW tail anymore! Hope to see that with my samples.. But still not getting what it is and how this tail can affect the sequencing.
    Thank you all!
    Attached Files

  • #2
    In some of my early library preps, I also saw and worried about a high molecular weight smear before. I thought it was bead carryover, but it wasn't.

    I think it is daisy-chained library resulting from depletion of primer or dNTPs. For more info, see:

    1) the section titled "Primer Depletion and Library Over-amplification" in the Kapa Library Amplifcation Kit guide: https://www.kapabiosystems.com/docum...-kit-tds/?dl=1

    2)https://ethanomics.wordpress.com/201...y-preparation/

    3) http://seqanswers.com/forums/showpos...3&postcount=15

    If that is correct, the libraries should be sequence-able, but the main thing is that your library quantification calculations (i.e. if nM based on the mean fragment length and Qubit concentration) might be inaccurate, and could affect the balance of reads if you are pooling libraries.

    Does your facility run MiSeq Nano for a low price? That might be a good way to test the libraries / pooling balance.

    Or you can run a qPCR-based library quantification kit (but I don't have experience with these) to get more accurate concentration measurements.

    You can also try the suggestion of one of the links above of adding more primer, dNTPs, and enzyme to do one more round of PCR.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thank you @arctan for the answer,

      I actually ended up doing one more PCR cycle. All but one library (input #15) looked OK for me. I tried to re-size-select #15 ending up with loosing DNA. Anyway, the samples were submitted, not sequenced yet. The sequencing facility sent me a very confusing QC file saying that all libraries failed The image is attached. For example, library #21 looks absolutely Ok for me. I am trying to get the answer what was the exact reason for failing. May be that was just a concentration issue. The plan for now is to prepare the new #15 and may be to remove small fragments from some libraries.

      Any suggestions?
      Attached Files

      Comment


      • #4
        Piggybacking off this a bit...I came here to post a very similar issue. I am seeing weird behavior at the tail of my run near the high MW marker. These libraries are post-spri bead cleanup (and my magnet/tubes don't seem to work as well as I have seen in the past), so am thinking I have some residual bead carryover. Two examples shown. Thoughts?
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #5
          The attached images are too small for me to read the axis units. However, the libraries seem to look perfectly fine for me.


          Originally posted by KB* View Post
          Thank you @arctan for the answer,

          I actually ended up doing one more PCR cycle. All but one library (input #15) looked OK for me. I tried to re-size-select #15 ending up with loosing DNA. Anyway, the samples were submitted, not sequenced yet. The sequencing facility sent me a very confusing QC file saying that all libraries failed The image is attached. For example, library #21 looks absolutely Ok for me. I am trying to get the answer what was the exact reason for failing. May be that was just a concentration issue. The plan for now is to prepare the new #15 and may be to remove small fragments from some libraries.

          Any suggestions?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bman View Post
            Piggybacking off this a bit...I came here to post a very similar issue. I am seeing weird behavior at the tail of my run near the high MW marker. These libraries are post-spri bead cleanup (and my magnet/tubes don't seem to work as well as I have seen in the past), so am thinking I have some residual bead carryover. Two examples shown. Thoughts?
            This is ATAC-seq?
            The proportion of longer fragments is relatively small. In our experience libraries like these can be sequenced without issues.
            I do not believe the magnets are to blame - likely some cells targeted less than others?

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi KB*, I agree with luc (but I am not that experienced with this stuff), that the distribution of the library looks good.

              I also cannot read the axes due to the low res images. I'm curious what your sequencing core says once you get a chance to talk to them.

              Some of the libraries have a small peak (e.g. 16, 22, 23, 27) -- is this adapter-dimer contamination?

              The estimated molarity of the libraries seem a little low (below 2 nM)? What concentration does your sequencing core require?

              Comment


              • #8
                @arctan, @luc, @bman
                So happy to hear your answers and the discussion

                Sorry for low res images. Prepared the new file with better images (only the seq.facility report. File is attached).

                The seq. facility promised to "try to reply" tomorrow with explanations... waiting...

                They asked 0.5 ng/uL, but I guess they meant 1.5 nM.

                I am not sure what those "small fragments" (~60-70bp) are. primer-dimers? (Slide 36 in [2] ) or "artefacts" (p. 6 in [3] ) . Interestingly, in the manual of the kit I used for the libs prep they show an example of the successful library. That example also has the "small fragments", a slight peak tiling an even a bit of HMW DNA. So, that shall not be a problem.

                Moreover, according to [2], Slide 37 either small peaks or wrong size libraries are sequencable.

                Anyway, my QUESTION is whether I shall sequence these libraries (except #15)? Shall I remove the "small fragments"? (libraries 23, 27 in particular)?

                [2] Slide 36


                [3] https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/a...en-agilent.pdf
                Attached Files

                Comment


                • #9
                  If you are going to treat some samples to remove "small fragments" than the treatment may need to be applied to all samples. You don't want to introduce a bias.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bman View Post
                    Piggybacking off this a bit...I came here to post a very similar issue. I am seeing weird behavior at the tail of my run near the high MW marker. These libraries are post-spri bead cleanup (and my magnet/tubes don't seem to work as well as I have seen in the past), so am thinking I have some residual bead carryover. Two examples shown. Thoughts?
                    Oh, @bman
                    I wish I know the answer. May be check the slide presentation I refer to in my previous answer [2]. I do not know may be you are preping some special kind of libraries. I am peping ChIP-seq libs and as you see my facility wants to see only one well defined peak at the expected size.

                    If you also expect to see only one peak and you can not remove HMW with the magnet, I think it is an overamplification artefact. This is what I did with my libraries; I denatured them at 95 oC for 5 min and cooled down at RT. When I run the sample on tapestation, I clearly saw ~600 bp peak indicating overamplification bubble. Another WORRYING thing also happened: the main peak (#300 bp) disappeared. My tech support said that my lib became ssDNA and that is why I do not see it. But I actually do not know...

                    Anyway in [2] slide 32 they recommend to check the libs like I described.

                    I can not really recommend anything as I do not have an experience in this, but many people say over-amplification it is not a problem for sequencing - please read the previous answers.

                    Just to add, when you have "strange" libraries at least here they do not give you any guarantees which means potential big money loss.

                    hope it helps
                    Last edited by KB*; 04-04-2019, 06:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GenoMax View Post
                      If you are going to treat some samples to remove "small fragments" than the treatment may need to be applied to all samples. You don't want to introduce a bias.
                      Thank you @GenoMax for the suggestion. I guess with size-selection I can focus on libs 21-27 (libs 15-20 and 21-27 are prepared using different cell lines. So essentially those are the two different sets of samples). I think I will need to leave #16 as it is. For the best of my understanding the primer-dimer affects only the corresponding library, e.g. #16 in this case. Here #16 is one of the 3 replicas:

                      #15 - input, cell line 1;
                      #16 - IP1, cell line 1;
                      #18 - IP2, cell line 1;
                      #19 - IP3, cell line 1;
                      #20 - IP done with IgG, cell line 1

                      #21 - input, cell line 2;
                      #22 - IP1, cell line 2;
                      #23 - IP2, cell line 2;
                      #25 - IP3, cell line 2;
                      #27 - IP done with IgG, cell line 2

                      How about bias in this case?
                      I will need to prep the new #15. It will be exactly the same chromatin used for IPs 16,18,19,20. Unfortunately, I can not prepare new 16, 18, 19 and 20. I am not sure I have to replicate all the conditions., e.g. the number of PCR cycles and an additional PCR and additional size-selections I did. It is an input, I guess it just has to be a nice and as much as possible "complete" library? Am I right?

                      I still have some residues of previous library #15 (no additional PCR, please see the attached image). May be I can use that library? I will need to do some PCR to increase the DNA concentration. Note, during the last size-select I lost a lot of DNA.

                      I will appreciate any feedback on this
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi KB*,

                        Adapter dimers can be a significant concern since they cluster and bridge-amplify efficiently and their small molecular weight means that a minor peak (in mass) can correspond to a fairly molarity percentage of the library. The effect would be that you would get a higher number of undesirable reads in your sequencing. See: http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22978.

                        Also see https://dnatech.genomecenter.ucdavis...ry-sequencing/ which says (for HighSeq 4000 / NovaSeq): "The new clustering chemistry is more sensitive to adapter dimers: a 5% adapter-dimer contamination can result in 60% of the reads coming from these dimers. Thus it is very important that there is no indication of an adapter-dimer peak (around 120 bp) on the Bioanalyzer trace."

                        HOWEVER, now that the images you attached are more high-resolution, the small peaks seem to be 65-80 bp, whereas usually adapter-dimers are around 120 bp. So those may be excess primer, which may cluster on the flow cell, but would not bridge-amplify).

                        If your small blips are indeed not adapter-dimers, then I think that your libraries look pretty good, so I am confused about your core's comments about the qc fail.

                        As to whether to sequence or not, part of the decision making relates to the sequencing depth needed and the budget. For example, if you are about to do a super expensive run and/or you need as much depth as possible, then it makes sense to be very careful. But if it's a smaller scale sequencing which doesn't squeeze your lab's budget, or if you would have so much extra depth that you don't actually need, then a smallish percentage of non-productive reads may be acceptable. Of course, we all wish for 100% perfection, but I'm trying to be pragmatic here.

                        For example, getting back the the large hump (daisy-chained). Those will probably fall apart once denatured, so they will sequence (see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Wh...a_cDNA_library). And if for some reason they were truly very large molecules, they would not cluster efficiently. So such a library would still sequence, although if you are pooling, your balancing of libraries might not be as accurate.

                        My institution's sequencing core offers an inexpensive MiSeq Nano with a fast turnaround time, so I've actually used that to do a quick run to make sure my pooled libraries will sequence well, and I use the MiSeq Nano results to alter the pooling balance if necessary for the larger scale, more expensive run.

                        (Someone correct me if I've posted anything inaccurate - apologies in advance)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dear all,

                          Dear @arctan @GenoMax, please help :-) I am lost.....

                          I got the answer from the sequencing facility. The libraries were failed because they have "short fragments". They are not primer-dimers or adapter-hexamers. They take the shortest fragment, subtract 120 and get this:
                          #15-152bp; #18-87bp; #19 -110bp etc.

                          They wrote: "The fragment size is less than 300bp, so there is small fragment in “remarks”.

                          I am not sure what they wanted to say

                          We were going to sequence (Novaseq) with paired reads of 150 bp. I guess that the core is trying to say that I have fragments shorter than the reads. Is that really a problem?
                          Last edited by KB*; 04-08-2019, 05:43 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If your facility offers an option then do a MiSeq nano run to see what the data looks like in real life. That would give you some indication of whether you want to move forward or not on NovaSeq or if you should try to tweak pooling. If you don't have primer dimers (but have real short inserts) then take that into consideration when re-pooling.

                            I guess that the core is trying to say that I have fragments shorter than the reads. Is that really a problem?
                            Yes that can be a problem. If you have very short inserts then with 150 bp reads sequencer will read into adapter at 3'-end at some point. This will cause Q-scores to drop and in general can be annoying. At least in your case not all samples are like this.
                            Last edited by GenoMax; 04-08-2019, 08:07 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hi KB*, I agree with GenoMax. If you are going to do NovaSeq, that is a huge amount of money (at least to me it is). I've only done MiSeq and NextSeq with short reads, so I don't have experience with long read runs.

                              The figure and info in this post might be useful:

                              Comment

                              Latest Articles

                              Collapse

                              • seqadmin
                                Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
                                by seqadmin


                                Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
                                03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
                              • seqadmin
                                Techniques and Challenges in Conservation Genomics
                                by seqadmin



                                The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.

                                Avian Conservation
                                Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...
                                03-08-2024, 10:41 AM

                              ad_right_rmr

                              Collapse

                              News

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:37 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                              0 responses
                              9 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                              0 responses
                              51 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                              0 responses
                              67 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Working...
                              X