SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MiSeq v3 2x300 run, Low Q30 ReGenMC Illumina/Solexa 16 02-13-2015 03:51 PM
MiSeq Reagent kit v3 exo Illumina/Solexa 15 01-14-2014 06:42 PM
Dual-index barcode read failures james hadfield Illumina/Solexa 12 12-16-2013 09:57 AM
MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 paolo.kunder Illumina/Solexa 4 09-22-2013 11:02 PM
miSeq failures during cluster generation greenhilly Illumina/Solexa 10 07-19-2012 08:25 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2015, 11:11 PM   #21
Bukowski
Senior Member
 
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 339
Default

Illumina have advised us not to run 2x300 on these cartridges and to only use them for 2x250 runs. If that doesn't generate enough coverage for our application they will then send replacement reagents.

Has anyone else recieved this advice?

Last edited by Bukowski; 06-29-2015 at 11:13 PM.
Bukowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2015, 10:28 AM   #22
Bardj
UB Buffalo Bioinformatics
 
Location: Buffalo NY

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 26
Thumbs down Same Issues in Buffalo

We've been running into major issues joining 16s reads for the v1-v3 region. Quality drops like a rock as most of you are also talking about. 2x300 PE MiSeq. They applied the "optical fix" but that did not help.

They have been reimbursing all of our MiSeq kits, and we were told the same advice - sequencing until you get enough data and they will reimburse. Unfortunately we need the full length 2x300 so that will not work for us.
Bardj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2015, 12:09 AM   #23
dfhdfh
Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 46
Default

Yeah, it's a shame.
dfhdfh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2015, 12:27 AM   #24
DRYTCYV
Member
 
Location: Portugal

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 50
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bukowski View Post
Illumina have advised us not to run 2x300 on these cartridges and to only use them for 2x250 runs. If that doesn't generate enough coverage for our application they will then send replacement reagents.

Has anyone else recieved this advice?
Yes, same thing here
DRYTCYV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2015, 05:12 PM   #25
markbvdh
Junior Member
 
Location: Adelaide

Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1
Default

The last few Miseq 600 cycles kits we've used have all had rapid increasing error rates after 100-150 cycles of the forward and reverse reads. The FAS's here (Australia) have been alluding to a (global) problem for quite a few months now with the 500 & 600 cycle Miseq kits, but there's been no formal batch flagging from Illumina HQ to date.... Due to the time everyone wastes in re-runs & troubleshooting, in my opinion, this should have happened by now. Sure, they offer to replace kits - but what about the time spent?

Mark

Last edited by markbvdh; 07-09-2015 at 05:14 PM.
markbvdh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2015, 12:24 AM   #26
punkka
Junior Member
 
Location: Belgium

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1
Default

We are having the same issues with V3, quality dropping in the forward read even before first 80-100 bases. We tried to get some more information as it seems it is not related to any batch. Has anyone any idea what might be the problem? In our lab we are running lots of targeted DNA sequencing, even using same library preps and MASTRs and we do see decline in quality since the middle of this summer and it affects different LOTs. As a response we get replacement kits, but yeah that does not solve the issue of wasting time and producing bad data.
punkka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2015, 02:50 PM   #27
petersm3
Junior Member
 
Location: Corvallis, OR

Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1
Post Low %>Q30 on R2 for 2x300 libraries

We have had numerous quality complaints from our customers performing 2x300 and 2x250 MiSeq runs (predominately amplicon libraries) where the %>Q30 is approximately 60% or less due to the “poor” quality of Read 2, and in some instances a significant number of clusters do not pass filter.

In a handful of cases, Illumina tech support cited issues after reviewing SAV, e.g.,
  • "There may have been a transient fluidics issue that occurred at the beginning of the run"
  • "Loss of focus at the end of the run likely caused by over clustering"
  • "Quality drop corresponds with an increase of A base calling. This is indicative of running out of insert to sequence."
Illumina replaced several kits and dispatched a field technician to adjust the MiSeq due to a non-optimal Z-focus setting. Even after this adjustment, we are still seeing low PF rates for our 2x300 and 2x250 runs, and tech support states that our MiSeq is operating within spec. The only suggestions offered by Illumina are that the samples run, e.g., amplicon libraries, are low in base diversity and that we should continue to decrease loading concentration and increase PhiX spike-in, which we already do and does not appear to significantly improve the situation.
petersm3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2015, 02:58 PM   #28
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

You can calculate the insert size distribution with BBMerge like this:

bbmerge.sh in=r1.fq in2=r2.fq ihist=ihist.txt vloose qtrim2=r


(those settings are designed for low-quality reads).

This will give you an indication of what fraction of your inserts are shorter than read length, and thus whether the third bullet point is a plausible explanation.

Also, can you post a base frequency histogram (by position)? And, how much PhiX are you using; are you multiplexing different amplicons together, or is there just one kind in a lane; and are you using variably-sized sequencing primers to stagger the read starts?

Last edited by Brian Bushnell; 09-17-2015 at 10:23 AM.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 04:16 AM   #29
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,232
Default

Modern MiSeq Control Software doesn't seem to benefit from higher phiX content -- beyond ~5-10% necessary for the instrument focus on. But dropping the clustering concentration down enough does seem to help. Obviously you can then end up with runs that are below Illumina's specifications for a given MiSeq run.

Given the amount of trouble they are having with this, I think they should have separate specs for low-plex (eg, single-plex) amplicon runs in their sales advertisements. That way people know they are not going to be able to push the system as much when doing amplicon work.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2015, 04:27 AM   #30
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,133
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiguel View Post
Given the amount of trouble they are having with this, I think they should have separate specs for low-plex (eg, single-plex) amplicon runs in their sales advertisements. That way people know they are not going to be able to push the system as much when doing amplicon work.
This point deserves repeating Phillip. Managing client expectations during initial consultations for MiSeq amplicon projects is huge. I generally advise them to plan their experiments with the expectation of 9-10 million usable read pairs from a MiSeq v2 PE250 run for amplicon libraries. I explain that for amplicon libraries we lower the cluster density; that the PhiX control library will take up 5-10% of the reads and with large, complex index sets the fraction of reads with non-assignable indexes is higher.
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2015, 12:39 PM   #31
martinjf
Member
 
Location: Montpellier, France

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11
Default

same issue here, our last 8 kits V3 2x300 runs were reimbursed (well they sent new kits but the problem is not solved....
We rechecked all runs and the problem appeared last february at least for us.
We checked three different miseq instruments, same issue.
Illumina recognizes here too that they have an issue with the reagents, no precise lot is isolated so far, even the most recent ones fail.
Around us most providers suspended their operations with V3 2x300 for now.

hopefully they will resolve this issue soon,

have faith
martinjf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 06:03 AM   #32
toneta2013
Junior Member
 
Location: Oslo

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Default

We're struggling with the reagent issue in Norway as well. You've all been describing the early loss of good quality data, however we also see a quality dip in R1 around bp 6 to 20. Anyone familiar with this? I've attach a file showing a typical fastQC output on our 16S metagenom data.
Attached Files
File Type: ppt FastQC_expl.ppt (656.5 KB, 40 views)
toneta2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 06:14 AM   #33
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toneta2013 View Post
We're struggling with the reagent issue in Norway as well. You've all been describing the early loss of good quality data, however we also see a quality dip in R1 around bp 6 to 20. Anyone familiar with this? I've attach a file showing a typical fastQC output on our 16S metagenom data.
If this was a one time observation it could be because of a glitch with the sequencer (e.g. small bubble in liquid path). If it is reproducible across runs, you may have a product that has low nucleotide diversity around that region seen in R1. Comments?
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 06:57 AM   #34
toneta2013
Junior Member
 
Location: Oslo

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Default

This happens across all runs (4 up to now), so I assume it's not a bouble. We're running the standard 16S metagenome protocol from Illumina, so I guess our diversity shouldn't be much different from anyone else's running this protocol?
toneta2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 08:10 AM   #35
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,695
Default

It sounds to me like a diversity issue, since the lowest diversity will be near the beginning. Are you using staggered primers, or spiking in anything with more diversity? There's also cluster density; even if you follow the same protocol, a higher cluster density will suffer more from a lack of diversity.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 10:21 AM   #36
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,232
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bushnell View Post
It sounds to me like a diversity issue, since the lowest diversity will be near the beginning. Are you using staggered primers, or spiking in anything with more diversity? There's also cluster density; even if you follow the same protocol, a higher cluster density will suffer more from a lack of diversity.
Brian,
Diversity should no longer be an issue with MiSeq runs. Or HiSeq runs for that matter. Modern versions of the Control Software for either instrument recognize low bias sequence and correct for it.

You just need enough phiX library (or other high diversity library) to put a few clusters per image (5-10% is fine) to keep the focus on track.

That said, and even though I've seen plenty of zero diversity MiSeq runs that look just fine, I'm suspicious at this point that the instrument might be thrown off by low-but-not-single-plex diversity. Since I've seen some poor results from sample with 4-6 amplicons. Or samples that start off single-plex but then become diverse.

But Illumina replaced the reagents for those runs. We just need to get new library pools from the customers to try again. (These were 500 cycle reagents and had a different failure mode -- good sequence for about 100 bases of each read, followed by terrible sequence quality.)

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 12:52 PM   #37
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 221
Default

At Illumina's UK UGM the team discussed the low quality at the end of long-read MiSeq kits. They acknowleged there was an issue and that they were actively working on it. However they have no plans to issue a quality notification until they understand the root cause. This issue has been rumbling on for months, at least a handful of invited users had not even heard of the problem.

Users need to be aware that 600 cycle kits are most likely not to work for long amplicons as the ends of both reads will drop in quality - badly.

The sentiment at the meeting was that issuing a quality notification to make sure customers are aware of this risks damaging confidence in these kits. Whilst many users will be unaffected (small random fragment genomes) or anyone sequencing under 500bp, the kit is clearly not delivering as expected in many long-read situations. Shareholders and investment banks may react negatively to a PQN, but without it too many users are in the dark.

Speak to your FAS and Sales team.
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2015, 11:37 PM   #38
toneta2013
Junior Member
 
Location: Oslo

Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 4
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Bushnell View Post
It sounds to me like a diversity issue, since the lowest diversity will be near the beginning. Are you using staggered primers, or spiking in anything with more diversity? There's also cluster density; even if you follow the same protocol, a higher cluster density will suffer more from a lack of diversity.
The run previously shown was run with a 4 pM 16S-library, 10 % PhiX spiked in. This resulted in a cluster density of 869. Are there anyone out there running the Illumina metagenomics protocol? Could you please provide a snapshot of a Fastqc-report from a successful run?
We are in dialog with Tech Support that are constantly sending us replacement kits and try to convince us that there do excist kits that are working... But it is frustrating to repeat runs that we assume will give crap results. And as long as Illumina do not officially acknowledge their trouble, I guess we will not be told when everything are back on track again...
toneta2013 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2015, 12:33 AM   #39
nucacidhunter
Senior Member
 
Location: Iran

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,055
Default

In addition to read quality there are problems with consistency as well. Re-running the same library with the same input gives different cluster numbers. The problem definitely is worse with 16S amplicons. High diversity libraries read quality are better but not as good as they used to be or up to the specification.
nucacidhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2015, 01:27 AM   #40
DRYTCYV
Member
 
Location: Portugal

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 50
Default

My idea is that the missing information about the quality problem it's a little bit naive for a big company like Illumina? I'm just saying this because its impossible to change something in a procedure, in this kind of companies, and say that they don't know about this.

In our experiments looks like that even in small amplicons (metagenomic protocol), users are complaining about the low quality at the ends.
DRYTCYV 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 01:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO