SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Sample Prep / Library Generation



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RNA-Seq: HITS-CLIP: panoramic views of protein-RNA regulation in living cells. Newsbot! Literature Watch 1 09-11-2015 12:48 AM
RNA-Seq: RNA-sequence analysis of human B-cells. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 05-04-2011 03:50 AM
RNA-Seq: RNA-Seq Analysis of Sulfur-Deprived Chlamydomonas Cells Reveals Aspects of A Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 07-01-2010 03:40 AM
RNA-Seq: Transcriptome and targetome analysis in MIR155 expressing cells using RNA-se Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 06-30-2010 03:00 AM
RNA seq libraries from few hundred cells artem.men Sample Prep / Library Generation 2 03-02-2010 05:04 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-05-2015, 11:22 PM   #161
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kobeho24 View Post
Hi Simone,
Glad to know that you have already tried the TGIRT on your hand. I wonder if 0.2% SDS can strip the sticky enzyme off the DNA efficiently. And have you tried SDS along with high temperature incubation and also RNase H/ RNase A treatment? From the bioanalyzer, things seem much better than the retroviral RT. Hope to see its application in single-cell RNA-seq.

Gary
Hi Gary,
I just tried with 0.2% SDS, in the same way as I am doing after tagmention to strip the Tn5 off the DNA before PCR and it didnīt work. I also tried SDS + NaOH/HCl (skipping columns or precipitation, as they recommend in the protocol) but, as I said, there was probably too much salt at that point and the PCR didnīt work.
/Simone
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 12:24 AM   #162
JJMS
Junior Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
I am still convinced that SMARTScribe is repackaged Superscript II since in my hands they perform exactly the same
good that it works for you as well!
Btw, I also talked to Life Tech and they also said to me that they had no complaints from other customers (that was back in July or August, I think), but since our SSII is fine I didnīt pursue it further. They probably tell the same thing to everybody, clever guys
Hi Simone,
Yes it sure looks like that. Our profiles with high input and SMARTscribe indeed match ssII nearly to a 100%. But with single cells SMARTscribe deviates a little. I have to leave out Mg because otherwise a smear around 500 bp's becomes visible. But for now, I'm very happy!
JJMS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 04:22 AM   #163
jwfoley
Senior Member
 
Location: Stanford

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJMS View Post
Our profiles with high input and SMARTscribe indeed match ssII nearly to a 100%. But with single cells SMARTscribe deviates a little. I have to leave out Mg because otherwise a smear around 500 bp's becomes visible.
SuperScript II's reaction buffer is 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 3 mM MgCl2. ClonTech doesn't say what's in the SMARTScribe mix but according to the documentation from their "legacy" single-cell RNA-seq kit, the first-strand reaction buffer is (at 1X) 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 6 mM MgCl2. If that's the same thing they provide when you buy SMARTScribe separately (though it might not be, since they also give you 20 mM DTT instead of 100 mM, as I hope you noticed), then of course you have to adjust the magnesium to compensate. Note that the SMARTScribe enzyme is also provided at 100 U/ĩL vs. SuperScript II's 200 U/ĩL.
jwfoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 08:12 AM   #164
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwfoley View Post
SuperScript II's reaction buffer is 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 3 mM MgCl2. ClonTech doesn't say what's in the SMARTScribe mix but according to the documentation from their "legacy" single-cell RNA-seq kit, the first-strand reaction buffer is (at 1X) 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 75 mM KCl, 6 mM MgCl2. If that's the same thing they provide when you buy SMARTScribe separately (though it might not be, since they also give you 20 mM DTT instead of 100 mM, as I hope you noticed), then of course you have to adjust the magnesium to compensate. Note that the SMARTScribe enzyme is also provided at 100 U/ĩL vs. SuperScript II's 200 U/ĩL.
thatīs true, thanks for the explanation. I should have said "repackaged Superscript...with a twist" (changed few details to justify the new packaging)
However, nowadays most or all of the RT protocols around are done with some kind of MMLV-based enzyme and wonīt differ so much from each other. My opinion, at least.
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2015, 08:24 AM   #165
jwfoley
Senior Member
 
Location: Stanford

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
thatīs true, thanks for the explanation. I should have said "repackaged Superscript...with a twist" (changed few details to justify the new packaging)
Well, SuperScript II is wild-type MMLV RTase plus point mutations to kill the RNase H domain. In principle different companies could actually be selling different enzymes with different point mutations...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
However, nowadays most or all of the RT protocols around are done with some kind of MMLV-based enzyme and wonīt differ so much from each other. My opinion, at least.
Even the fancier enzymes like SuperScript III and Maxima are, as far as I can tell, just engineered to be heat-resistant. That's what makes them more processive: you could run SuperScript II at 50 °C and it would probably be just as fast, except the enzyme would degrade too quickly to be very useful. Unfortunately this engineering tends to kill the C-tailing activity for some reason. But if you aren't using template-switching, mere heat resistance is still a legitimate improvement. (For sequencing I might still worry about increased error rates at the higher temperatures.)
jwfoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2015, 05:49 PM   #166
kobeho24
Member
 
Location: HKUST, Hong Kong

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 32
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
Hi Gary,
I just tried with 0.2% SDS, in the same way as I am doing after tagmention to strip the Tn5 off the DNA before PCR and it didnīt work. I also tried SDS + NaOH/HCl (skipping columns or precipitation, as they recommend in the protocol) but, as I said, there was probably too much salt at that point and the PCR didnīt work.
/Simone
Hi Simone,
I don't know if you noticed that the newly published TGIRT paper in the journal RNA. They use the TGIRT to do the RT of human plasma RNA. And I realized that there is a fragmentation step prior to RT when dealing with whole cell total RNA as they suggested. Thus, on my perspective, defeat its better processivity compared to retroviral RT. You mentioned that the average size of cDNA generated by TGIRT is 4-5k. I just wonder if you have an in-house protocol to do so. It would be much appreciated if you let me know.
BTW, I noticed that the TGIRT can template switch not only RNA but also DNA, which means it might not be compatible with single-cell RNA-seq, unless we extract the total RNA from a single cell and do rRNA-depletion before RT, am I right?

Best!
Gary
kobeho24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2015, 08:34 AM   #167
amcg
Junior Member
 
Location: UK

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1
Default

Hi all,
I'm hoping to use the Smart-seq2 protocol to make rna-seq libraries from small populations (200-500) of cells collected by FACS. In this case would you advise sorting them directly into the lysis buffer (triton-x and RNase inhibitor) described in the Nature Protocols paper, or would it be better to extract the RNA first and then proceed with the reverse transcription on purified RNA?

Many thanks!
amcg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2015, 04:40 AM   #168
chaichontat
Junior Member
 
Location: Bangkok

Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3
Default

Hi Simone,

I used the Smart-seq2 protocol using the Superscript IV. For some reason, the reaction failed completely (no cDNA products were observed). When I did not add 1M betaine (Sigma) and 6mM MgCl2, the RT reaction went beautifully, but there's no template switching. The template was 10 ng of purified PBMCs RNA and the TSO was synthesized by Eurogentec. Could you provide me with the reaction conditions you used with SSRT IV?

Thanks!
Chaichontat
chaichontat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 12:56 PM   #169
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amcg View Post
Hi all,
I'm hoping to use the Smart-seq2 protocol to make rna-seq libraries from small populations (200-500) of cells collected by FACS. In this case would you advise sorting them directly into the lysis buffer (triton-x and RNase inhibitor) described in the Nature Protocols paper, or would it be better to extract the RNA first and then proceed with the reverse transcription on purified RNA?

Many thanks!
Hi,
even if your cells have a lot of RNA I wouldnīt do it. This is only my opinion, others might think differently. Every time you transfer RNA before any amplification step you lose molecules. I would sort directly into the lysis buffer, but be aware that 0.2% Triton might not be sufficient for lysing so many cells.
Best,
Simone
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 01:01 PM   #170
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chaichontat View Post
Hi Simone,

I used the Smart-seq2 protocol using the Superscript IV. For some reason, the reaction failed completely (no cDNA products were observed). When I did not add 1M betaine (Sigma) and 6mM MgCl2, the RT reaction went beautifully, but there's no template switching. The template was 10 ng of purified PBMCs RNA and the TSO was synthesized by Eurogentec. Could you provide me with the reaction conditions you used with SSRT IV?

Thanks!
Chaichontat
Hi,
I did exactly as described in the Nat Prot paper, just replacing SSRTII with SSRTIV and doing the RT for 15 min @ 50 degrees and inactivated the enzyme for 10 min @ 80 degrees.. I tested it only on tot RNA (10 pg) and I actually noticed that when I didnīt add betaine and MgCl2 I got worse results than when using them...the opposite of what you found. in my case the template switching went ok, at least based on the cDNA yield and size.
Best,
Simone
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2015, 01:11 PM   #171
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kobeho24 View Post
Hi Simone,
I don't know if you noticed that the newly published TGIRT paper in the journal RNA. They use the TGIRT to do the RT of human plasma RNA. And I realized that there is a fragmentation step prior to RT when dealing with whole cell total RNA as they suggested. Thus, on my perspective, defeat its better processivity compared to retroviral RT. You mentioned that the average size of cDNA generated by TGIRT is 4-5k. I just wonder if you have an in-house protocol to do so. It would be much appreciated if you let me know.
BTW, I noticed that the TGIRT can template switch not only RNA but also DNA, which means it might not be compatible with single-cell RNA-seq, unless we extract the total RNA from a single cell and do rRNA-depletion before RT, am I right?

Best!
Gary
Hi Gary,
yes, I saw the paper, thanks! I didnīt know that the TGIRT can do strand switch on DNA as well (this was not mentioned when I contacted the Lambowitz lab). When I first did my tests some time ago I used tot RNA. Unfortunately, it didnīt work at single cell level (pg) and I just dropped it. therefore, I never sequenced anything and never tried on a real cell. I do have a protocol that worked with 100 ng (!) RNA but after the publication of this new article, I want to try again using some modifications and see if I can get it to work with less RNA. So I canīt really share it right now, sorry!
Best,
Simone
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2015, 09:18 AM   #172
chaichontat
Junior Member
 
Location: Bangkok

Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
Hi,
I did exactly as described in the Nat Prot paper, just replacing SSRTII with SSRTIV and doing the RT for 15 min @ 50 degrees and inactivated the enzyme for 10 min @ 80 degrees.. I tested it only on tot RNA (10 pg) and I actually noticed that when I didnīt add betaine and MgCl2 I got worse results than when using them...the opposite of what you found. in my case the template switching went ok, at least based on the cDNA yield and size.
Best,
Simone
Hi Simone,

It turned out that my PCR primers were the problem. I was too fixated on the template switching process that I completely ignored the preamplification. Upon replacing the primers, everything works beautifully. I really thank you for this brilliant protocol!

Chaichontat
chaichontat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2015, 09:23 AM   #173
KroSeq
Junior Member
 
Location: Gothenburg

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 4
Default SSRT IV vs SSRT II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
Hi,
I did exactly as described in the Nat Prot paper, just replacing SSRTII with SSRTIV and doing the RT for 15 min @ 50 degrees and inactivated the enzyme for 10 min @ 80 degrees.. I tested it only on tot RNA (10 pg) and I actually noticed that when I didnīt add betaine and MgCl2 I got worse results than when using them...the opposite of what you found. in my case the template switching went ok, at least based on the cDNA yield and size.
Best,
Simone
Hej Simone,
what is the benefit of using SSRT IV instead of SSRT II?
KroSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2015, 04:27 AM   #174
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KroSeq View Post
Hej Simone,
what is the benefit of using SSRT IV instead of SSRT II?
the RT reaction is way faster than with the SSRTII but, apart from that, I donīt see any improvement in the reaction (at least with my settings!). The prices are almost the same, the SSRTIV is a bit more expensive.
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 01:18 PM   #175
longwood
Junior Member
 
Location: Massachusetts

Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5
Default Superscript II contamination update

E. Coli contamination of superscript II has been confirmed by the manufacturer. I know a bunch of people reported this on this forum a few months back, so thought I'd share this letter (attached) I received from Thermo Fisher. The letter basically says they have started testing for E. Coli DNA as part of their routine test now and those who received the tainted lots will be sent free replacement upon request.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf img008_1.pdf (558.9 KB, 115 views)
longwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2015, 07:13 PM   #176
kobeho24
Member
 
Location: HKUST, Hong Kong

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 32
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
Hi Gary,
yes, I saw the paper, thanks! I didnīt know that the TGIRT can do strand switch on DNA as well (this was not mentioned when I contacted the Lambowitz lab). When I first did my tests some time ago I used tot RNA. Unfortunately, it didnīt work at single cell level (pg) and I just dropped it. therefore, I never sequenced anything and never tried on a real cell. I do have a protocol that worked with 100 ng (!) RNA but after the publication of this new article, I want to try again using some modifications and see if I can get it to work with less RNA. So I canīt really share it right now, sorry!
Best,
Simone
Hi Simone,
Sounds really great that you do have a protocol. What I wonder is RT condition for non-fragmented RNA. Just incubate the RNA with TGIRT at proper temperature for 15 min? Looking forward to your successful modified protocol.

Gary
kobeho24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2015, 09:28 AM   #177
chaichontat
Junior Member
 
Location: Bangkok

Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3
Default

Hi Simone,

I'm trying to amplify one gene of interest; however, I couldn't get a specific band when I added the whole 10 ul of the RT reaction (final PCR volume was 25 ul). The band only appeared when I added 1 ul of the RT mix, suggesting that there's some inhibition of PCR by the RT mix.

However, there was one deviation from your protocol: I used the component version (not ReadyMix) of the KAPA HiFi Hot Start. Do you think that this could have been a factor?

Thanks!
Chaichontat
chaichontat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2016, 03:04 AM   #178
kobeho24
Member
 
Location: HKUST, Hong Kong

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 32
Unhappy SSII contamination

Hi all,
Recently I’ve done 3 runs of single-cell RNA-seq (Smart seq2) trial. I just followed the original protocol. A highly reproducible background curve can be observed even in negative controls (only nuclease free water) when using our new SuperScript II RTase, which cannot be seen when using SSIII, or without RTase. Our bad SSII lot no. is 1688365.
QQ??20160121185909.png

QQ??20160121190101.png

QQ??20160121190137.png

Does any of you guys have any recommendation of substitutive MMLV RTase? I saw ProtoScripts II & SS IV so far, any candidate else?

Best wishes!
Gary

Last edited by kobeho24; 01-21-2016 at 06:47 PM.
kobeho24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 05:06 AM   #179
Simone78
Senior Member
 
Location: Basel (Switzerland)

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kobeho24 View Post
Hi all,
Recently I’ve done 3 runs of single-cell RNA-seq (Smart seq2) trial. I just followed the original protocol. A highly reproducible background curve can be observed even in negative controls (only nuclease free water) when using our new SuperScript II RTase, which cannot be seen when using SSIII, or without RTase. Our bad SSII lot no. is 1688365.
Attachment 4169

Attachment 4170

Attachment 4171

Does any of you guys have any recommendation of substitutive MMLV RTase? I saw ProtoScripts II & SS IV so far, any candidate else?

Best wishes!
Gary
I would use either SMARTscribe (Clontech) or Maxima H- (Thermo Scientific).
Simone78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 06:33 AM   #180
kobeho24
Member
 
Location: HKUST, Hong Kong

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 32
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simone78 View Post
I would use either SMARTscribe (Clontech) or Maxima H- (Thermo Scientific).
Hi Simone,
Between these two, which one's better? It seems that SMARTscribe is similar to SSII and Maxima H- is similar to SSIV. Besides, as SMARTscribe is 100U/ul while Maxima H- is 200U/ul, do we still make it 100U in the 10ul RT reaction as it is in the Smart-seq2 protocol? Am I right?

Best!
Gary
kobeho24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO