SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > 454 Pyrosequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Enrichment Numbers Anthony.287 454 Pyrosequencing 18 03-22-2012 03:30 AM
PubMed: Fragmentation of contaminant and endogenous DNA in ancient samples determined Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 09-11-2011 08:40 AM
Convert GO numbers to GO terms Ramet Bioinformatics 6 09-10-2010 01:08 AM
How much DNA does the sequencer take in and how are peak heights determined Hao Illumina/Solexa 0 04-18-2010 06:53 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2009, 05:04 AM   #1
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,307
Default How are raw well numbers determined?

What constitutes a "raw well" for a Titanium run? "keypass" wells require the 4 key bases. But how is a raw well identified?

Typically 4 million beads are loaded and, if all goes well, you see about 2 million raw wells. What happens to the other 2 million beads?

The Titanium Chemistry overview says there are 3.6 million wells per PTP. So there are wells available for most of the beads. Not many sample beads appear to be pulled off during deposition. When we count the number of sample beads in the pooled liquid removed during deposition, there are about 10% of the sample beads there.


--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 02:26 AM   #2
seqAll
Member
 
Location: China

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Interesting question! Would like to know the answer as well.

It seems like the way of beads deposition has a large space to optimise. Too dense beads, say if you can fill all wells with beads, leads to totally unreadable signal. Too loose beads wastes the reagents.

For the entire plate, one may control the average bead density. Locally, there are always some too dense, some too loose.

Antoher post in the forum (can't remenber now) which shows the plots of untrimmed vs trimmed reads seems to say that too dense beads also lead to short read.
seqAll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 03:35 AM   #3
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seqAll View Post
Interesting question! Would like to know the answer as well.

It seems like the way of beads deposition has a large space to optimise. Too dense beads, say if you can fill all wells with beads, leads to totally unreadable signal. Too loose beads wastes the reagents.

For the entire plate, one may control the average bead density. Locally, there are always some too dense, some too loose.

Antoher post in the forum (can't remenber now) which shows the plots of untrimmed vs trimmed reads seems to say that too dense beads also lead to short read.
Yes, the 454 manuals warn of overloading the PTP.

I have had several people tell me that only some of the beads added to the PTP actually end up in a well. The implication being that ~50% are pulled off the plate during steps subsequent to deposition. However, when we count the beads that do get pulled off, we can account for around 10-15% of the total.

The titanium PTP is said to have 3.6 million wells. The protocol calls for loading 4 million beads (2 million/region). The number of beads recovered during steps subsequent to sample bead loading is consistent will nearly all the beads finding a well. Yet, raw well counts tend to be around 2 million for the entire PTP. On the SOLiD we would call that a 50% "deposition efficiency". Except, by the process of elimination, we know that nearly all the beads (~80-90%) are actually being deposited into a well.

Recently this "efficiency" has been falling for us. While the results have been acceptable (around 400 megabases of sequence), both sample and control bead keypass numbers are 35% of the total loaded. (With keypass numbers >90% of raw well numbers).

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 08:12 AM   #4
seqAll
Member
 
Location: China

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 21
Default

I see that the numbers of beads loaded and pulled off do not adds up to the original total.

Is the variation of the bead counter big or small? Maybe I was too warry about the accuracy of bead counter.

The volume of well is designed to take one single bead + some other small beads such as enzyme beads etc. Could there be 1.5 beads in one well? - A half in the well, another half above the surface. This might connect two good wells to become bad. Maybe this is not a problem after centrifuge. I don't know.
seqAll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 09:33 AM   #5
454Sequencing
Member
 
Location: Branford, CT

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 22
Default

Hi Phillip and seqAll,

My first recommendation would be to consult the 454 software manual for more information on what defines Raw Wells. The Manuals section of the my454 customer site (http://www.454.com/my454) has recently been updated with the current (v2.3) software manual. Specifically, the software manual Part B pp. 12-13 describes the series of signal corrections and filters that are applied to yield Raw Wells.

As for the topic of bead loading & how it relates to Raw Wells - We have optimized the bead loading recommendations (for example, 2M beads per region of a 2-region gasket) to maximize the number of High Quality Reads while minimizing the number of beads loaded. As part of the same efficiency measures we also optimized the emPCR enrichment procedures to yield the most, high quality, sequence-able beads.

In our experience, the overwhelming majority of beads loaded do end up in wells of the PicoTiterPlate. A small percentage end up in non-desired areas (like the gasket), and as you point out, a small percentage remain in the supernatant. However, some beads that are deposited will not sequence well for a variety of reasons - i.e. insufficient number of copies of template, null beads from lower stringency of enrichment, etc. Wells containing beads of that nature will not yield a Raw Well.

All that said, if you are seeing any change in performance I would certainly recommend following up with your local Roche representative to aid in troubleshooting.

Best regards,
Jason
__________________
Technical Product Manager
454 Life Sciences, A Roche Company
454Sequencing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 11:54 AM   #6
seqAll
Member
 
Location: China

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Thanks Jason,

One question I don't understand. Most of the time we have the filtered% around 50% to 70%. If the overwhelming majority of beads (2 M per region) loaded do end up in wells of the PicoTiterPlate, there will be about 1 M to 1.4 M filtered reads, that is 2 M to 2.8 M high quliaty reads per run. But we know that the yield per run is about 1 M.

Don't know where I got wrong.
seqAll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2009, 12:14 PM   #7
454Sequencing
Member
 
Location: Branford, CT

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 22
Default

Hi seqAll,

Unless I am mistaken you might be confusing Raw Wells with quality filtered reads. Quality filtered reads are themselves a percentage of Raw Wells, since they represent the output of additional quality filtering processes. For example, if you had 2M Raw Wells total and of those 65% pass quality filtering, the resulting yield for the run is 2M * 65% = 1.3M quality filtered reads.

You can find more details on quality filtering in Part B of the software manual, Section 1.4.2, starting on pp. 13. For more information I'd recommend following up with your local Roche representative as they likely can provide some additional training if desired.

Best regards,
Jason
__________________
Technical Product Manager
454 Life Sciences, A Roche Company
454Sequencing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2009, 05:50 AM   #8
Zaag
Senior Member
 
Location: Amsterdam

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
Default

We had 2.273.997 raw wells in the last run with 2 regions.
Zaag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2009, 06:05 AM   #9
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 454Sequencing View Post
Hi Phillip and seqAll,

[...] the software manual Part B pp. 12-13 describes the series of signal corrections and filters that are applied to yield Raw Wells.
[...] In our experience, the overwhelming majority of beads loaded do end up in wells of the PicoTiterPlate. A small percentage end up in non-desired areas (like the gasket), and as you point out, a small percentage remain in the supernatant. However, some beads that are deposited will not sequence well for a variety of reasons - i.e. insufficient number of copies of template, null beads from lower stringency of enrichment, etc. Wells containing beads of that nature will not yield a Raw Well.
Hi Jason,
It is great to see an answer to this mystifying process. What you write more or less confirms my suspicions. Basically, about 1/2 the enriched beads loaded are dud beads--producing little or no signal or displaying some other sign that makes them quickly discountable?
That said, additional clarity would be welcome.
Specifically, a break down of which filters were invoked to exclude each non-raw well for a given run would be very helpful in assessing input library issues. (Note, that the only "filter" mentioned in pp 11-12 of the SW-Manual_PartB is a "ghost well" filter. And the bullet list at the top of page 10 makes it ambiguous as to whether this filter is even invoked in non-Amplicon pipelines.)
Is this information recorded anywhere? I can parse log files, if necessary.
Thanks,
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2009, 08:59 AM   #10
seqAll
Member
 
Location: China

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiguel View Post
...Basically, about 1/2 the enriched beads loaded are dud beads...
Phillip
Thanks Philip, that clears my confusion.
seqAll 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 09:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO