Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Uneven reads in pooled sample

    Hi All,

    I've been doing this a while, but have run into a new problem on a batch of RNA-Seq samples (Truseq) that I'm concerned about. We prepped a bunch of RNA samples for sequencing and have a few that are low concentration. The core facility that I have been using for years was unhappy with this, but I didn't really see where the issue was given there was plenty of material for pooling.

    Nevertheless they ran one lane for me (HiSeq), but apparently had to modify their dilution protocol. The result was as follows for the lane:


    Reads % lane % PF cluster Qual score
    Sample*1 31,287,035 12.66 89.81 36.96
    Sample*2 70,103,756 28.36 89.49 36.96
    Sample*3 8,599,888 3.48 90.17 36.97
    Sample*4 3,309,119 1.34 89.80 37.01
    Sample*5 98,775,103 39.95 89.24 36.94
    Sample*6 28,415,646 11.49 90.10 36.94

    Now, clearly the issue is that the distribution of data is very uneven, BUT the number of reads directly and perfectly correlate with the starting concentration of each sample prior to pooling (R2 = 0.99)! From what I can gather, the core did not make an intermediate dilution for each but instead added variable volumes to a pool and used that to cluster, but what happened in between I do not know. What I dont understand is why they did this. Here are the sample concs:

    ng/ul nM
    Sample1 1.6 6.3
    Sample2 2.4 9.6
    Sample3 0.9 3.5
    Sample4 0.6 2.4
    Sample5 2.7 10.8
    Sample6 1.5 6.1

    We are almost certain that given the correlation with the pre-pooled sample concentration the pooling has been done incorrectly and that the variable volumes has perhaps thrown everything off balance. Does that sound reasonable?

    According to all the illumina documentation I have read, the best thing to do would be to normalize each sample to 2 nM, and then combine equal volume of each together to make a 2 nM pool, which would then be the starting point for cluster generation. Does this sound reasonable? Am I missing something here?

    ****I should mention that samples were quantified with both picogreen and bioanalyzer HS DNA. These gave very similar results (r = 0.8) so I doubt quantification is a major issue here****
    Last edited by theduke; 02-03-2016, 11:10 AM.

  • #2
    If the library sizes were similar, they have failed to do equimolar pooling. Using different volumes for pooling or equal volumetric pooling of normalised libraries should not affect the read ratios if done correctly. qPCR is the most accurate library quantification method and the ones mentioned here are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Agreed that qPCR is the way to go for accurate quantification, but that's a separate issue. Here we are talking about relative concentrations and the pooling of multiple samples. It certainly looks like equimolar pooling has failed in this instance.

      Comment


      • #4
        We've consistently observed lower-than-calculated cluster numbers when working with dilute (<1ng/ul) libraries. We don't think it's an issue with adsorption b/c we use LoBind tubes, nor an issue with the quantification (using PicoGreen fluorometry and BioAnalyzer, same as OP). We suspect that it's related to library quality, particularly when prepared in parallel. If the same amount of RNA input yields substantially different amounts of library, it's reasonable to assume that something wonky happened.

        Also, you may want to recalculate your correlation. For example, sample 2 (9.6 nM) is 4X the concentration of sample 4 (2.4 nM), but produces 21X as many reads (70M / 3.3M).

        Comment


        • #5
          What was the cutoff for the observed weirdness? <1ng/ul? I think we will redo the 5 or 6 samples that are odd ones out and start over.

          Does my pooling plan sound reasonable?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by HESmith View Post
            We've consistently observed lower-than-calculated cluster numbers when working with dilute (<1ng/ul) libraries. We don't think it's an issue with adsorption b/c we use LoBind tubes, nor an issue with the quantification (using PicoGreen fluorometry and BioAnalyzer, same as OP). We suspect that it's related to library quality, particularly when prepared in parallel. If the same amount of RNA input yields substantially different amounts of library, it's reasonable to assume that something wonky happened.

            Also, you may want to recalculate your correlation. For example, sample 2 (9.6 nM) is 4X the concentration of sample 4 (2.4 nM), but produces 21X as many reads (70M / 3.3M).
            Lower than expected yield indicates some issues with library prep but it could be unrelated to quality, for instance loss during library clean-up of a good library. If there was an issue with library quality, then the cluster density and yield should be lower than expected as the bad library would not contribute to sequencing output. Because of formatting issue I can't figure out the stats given on output here. Pooling equimolar quantity of libraries quantified with qPCR with below 1 ng/ul and up to 10 ng/ul I have not observed this.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by nucacidhunter View Post
              Because of formatting issue I can't figure out the stats given on output here.
              Apologies for that. In the first table, there are five columns in the following order:

              Sample name
              Number of reads
              % of the lane
              %PF clusters
              Quality score

              There doesn't appear to be any quality issues per se.

              Comment


              • #8
                Sequencing reads is over 230M which is around average for V4 chemistry on HiSeq 2500 if that is the platform used for sequencing and read quality and PF is up to specs.

                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
                8 views
                0 likes
                Last Post seqadmin  
                Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                0 responses
                8 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