Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Always get the same insert size after PCR despite initial size selection on gDNA

    Dear All, I am trying to make our own WGS library with dual barcodes. It involves a very common workflow including fragmentation (we use a Shearase from Zymo instead of covaris), End-Repair + A-tailing, Y-shape adapter ligation and PCR amplification.

    After shearing, I cleaned up the gDNA fragments with 1:1 SPRI beads. A tapestation run shows that this shifts the peak distribution from 170bp to 271 bp. I then continued with the other steps. After PCR however, the fragment size turns out to be around 303 bp, minus the adapters it's around 160bp, despite the fact that I have done a size selection at the beginning.

    Based on your experience, is this mainly due to PCR bias towards small fragments (we use KAPA Hifi mix)? I also included a negative control from the start of the workflow to make sure that these small fragments are not contaminants or some other random amplicons.
    Attached Files

  • #2
    1) The D5000 assay has ±10% sizing accuracy, which is within the range of the fragment sizes you're seeing. Have you seen a size discrepancy for your libraries across multiple preps?

    2) PCR bias towards smaller fragments is definitely a factor, although this can be partially mitigated by increasing your extension time. I'm assuming that you're using a KAPA prep kit -- have you looked in their technical guide for size distribution optimization? They have some good figures showing the the effects of different size selection methods and some recommendations that seem quite relevant to your question.

    3) Finally, the libraries you show are post-PCR amplification and pre-cleanup, correct? Why not just do an additional SPRI-based size selection after your PCR enrichment?
    Last edited by adam.geber; 07-12-2016, 08:33 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dear Adam, thank you for the suggestions.
      Originally posted by adam.geber View Post
      1) The D5000 assay has ±10% sizing accuracy, which is within the range of the fragment sizes you're seeing. Have you seen a size discrepancy for your libraries across multiple preps?
      I always get a peak at around 303bp after PCR, regardless of what size selection I tried before PCR. The first figure shows the fragmented DNA (without adapters), while the second one includes adapters (~150bp in my case). So the size discrepancy is not explained by the sizing precision of the D5000 assay. Now I'm wondering if the primers have non-specific bindings to the genomic DNA, so it always amplifies the same peak. I will try to use raw gDNA for a PCR to find out.

      Originally posted by adam.geber View Post
      2) PCR bias towards smaller fragments is definitely a factor, although this can be partially mitigated by increasing your extension time. I'm assuming that you're using a KAPA prep kit -- have you looked in their technical guide for size distribution optimization? They have some good figures showing the the effects of different size selection methods and some recommendations that seem quite relevant to your question.
      We are not using the KAPA kit, but only the KAPA Hifi premix for the PCR step. I have read through the guide, doesn't seem to talk much about size distribution bias during PCR or the ways to mitigate the effect. It has some guides on bead size selection, which is something I'm already doing. It suggests that getting the fragment size distribution correct from the beginning is important since the bead size selection doesn't produce a tight range.

      Originally posted by adam.geber View Post
      3) Finally, the libraries you show are post-PCR amplification and pre-cleanup, correct? Why not just do an additional SPRI-based size selection after your PCR enrichment?
      Yes I have tried the double cut SPRI selection. The post-PCR size selection isn't very helpful, it shifts the peak to the right by ~30bp (330bp), but due to the much higher peak in the small size range in the PCR product, it doesn't generate my desired the insert size (350-650bp fragment, 200-500bp insert). This is why I try to optimize the distribution after PCR to make sure that it's as close to the target size as possible.

      Comment


      • #4
        Today I performed more tests. I adjusted the fragmentation step to get a bigger gDNA distribution. I also left the beads in after ligation clean-up for PCR. This seems to help with the size distribution a bit. The longest fragment size I can get now is 372bp (insert 222 bp). However the sheared DNA should have a peak at 354bp, plus 150bp of adapter that should be around 500bp. So my final library is still 130bp shorter than expected...

        One thing I notice is that when I ran the ligated fragments, the Y-shaped adapter makes them run slower. But there seems to a second, lower peak. Are these unligated fragments? If so perhaps I can increase adapter input (currently I'm using 1ul of 5uM adapter mix in 20ul reaction) to make sure they are ligated?
        Alternatively, perhaps the End-repair and A-tailing wasn't efficient enough, so the longer fragments in the library don't get the adapter ligation?

        Any pointers would be appreciated!
        Attached Files

        Comment


        • #5
          Could you just post overlapped profile of sheared clean input and corresponding PCR after cleanup.

          There is no reason for preferential ligation at this size range.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nucacidhunter View Post
            Could you just post overlapped profile of sheared clean input and corresponding PCR after cleanup.

            There is no reason for preferential ligation at this size range.
            Haven't done the cleanup yet because in the protocol I am using it asks for a double cut bead selection, after which the distribution will differ from the raw pcr. If I use a 1.8x clean up the peak doesn't shift.

            Comment


            • #7
              For these libraries double SPRI is not required but PCR need to be cleaned before sequencing anyway, so you can do 1x or 0.8x bead clean up (depending on the ratio used for clean up of fragmented input DNA). This will have the same size cut off as input and should not change the size distribution.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by nucacidhunter View Post
                For these libraries double SPRI is not required but PCR need to be cleaned before sequencing anyway, so you can do 1x or 0.8x bead clean up (depending on the ratio used for clean up of fragmented input DNA). This will have the same size cut off as input and should not change the size distribution.
                Right, so a PCR clean up won't help much with shifting the distribution up (to peak at 450bp )?

                Comment


                • #9
                  DNA migration speed and hence calculated size is affected by presence of salts and protein in the sample. For fair comparison fragmented input DNA and PCR product has to be resuspended or eluted in the same buffer.

                  If you clean the PCR product with lower ratio of bead to amplicon (for instance 0.65x) short library fragments below 300bp will be cut off and that will shift the remaining library fragments peak to higher value. But I do not think that is what you want and is not advisable as it will reduce library diversity and yield.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by nucacidhunter View Post
                    DNA migration speed and hence calculated size is affected by presence of salts and protein in the sample. For fair comparison fragmented input DNA and PCR product has to be resuspended or eluted in the same buffer.

                    If you clean the PCR product with lower ratio of bead to amplicon (for instance 0.65x) short library fragments below 300bp will be cut off and that will shift the remaining library fragments peak to higher value. But I do not think that is what you want and is not advisable as it will reduce library diversity and yield.
                    Thanks! I will try cleaning with 1X beads then to see if the size becomes expected.

                    Another question though is the double peaks after ligation. From previous posts some seems to suggests that the lower peak around 300bp represent fragments with a single adapter ligated, while the very "long" fragments are caused by Y-shaped adapters on both sides. Does this suggest insufficient adapter input or poor ligation in my case since the lower peak is quite high?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have seen the double peak in TruSeq prepared libraries as well and since the kits normally are optimised I do not think that it is due to low quantity of adapters. The explanation about its origin is logical but I have not seen any experimental evidence to support that.

                      If the input is FFPE sample reduction in library size is normall as some larger fragments will not be amplified due to damage.
                      Last edited by nucacidhunter; 07-13-2016, 11:44 PM.

                      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
                      49 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