View Single Post
Old 06-17-2016, 09:26 AM   #6
kerplunk412
Senior Member
 
Location: Bioo Scientific, Austin, TX, USA

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 119
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sajoshi View Post
I just send you a message asking a question. Please let me know.
Response sent.

Also, to be fair I should mention some of the other kits out there and the pros and cons.

NEB: Cost effective, lower bias than TruSeq, but substantially more bias than NEXTflex (Bioo)

TriLink: Cost effective (I think), streamlined protocol with no gel size selection required, but similar bias as TruSeq

Clontech: Uses poly(A) tailing and template switching RT to eliminate ligation steps, thereby reducing bias. Shows slightly less bias than NEXTflex kit, but mapping rates to miRNA are very low, leading to lower overall detection/discovery rates in total RNA samples. This makes sense, as other than size selection there is no way to select for miRNA as there is with ligation-based kit. I think this protocol is also pretty streamlined.
kerplunk412 is offline   Reply With Quote