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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Narrow vs broad size selection NeleZ Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 12-09-2013 08:48 AM
Importance of narrow size selection? sotoole Illumina/Solexa 5 01-28-2013 04:37 PM
Size selection: agarose gel / acrylamide gel amazonic9 Sample Prep / Library Generation 2 12-05-2012 03:56 AM
Gel used for size selection FredBeaudoin Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 10-31-2012 01:23 AM
PE (in gel) Size-Selection puggie Illumina/Solexa 3 11-28-2011 05:24 AM

Thread Tools
Old 10-18-2016, 07:29 AM   #1
Junior Member
Location: Germany

Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2
Default E-gel vs BluePippin for narrow size selection???

Hi Everyone,

I am facing a problem with size selection of Covaris fragmented DNA. I would require insert sizes in the narrow range 700-800 bp for library preparation. BluePippin was not able to provide a narrow size range for the 750 bp library.
So I was wondering if I can use the E-gel 2% size select for this narrow size selection.
Have you ever tried getting narrow sizes using E-gel size select for the sizes 700-800 bp? What is the recovery rate of the library following size selection? What is your opinion on use of E-gel for size selection compared to BluePippin?

It will be very helpful for me if you can share some details.
Looking forward for your reply. Thank you very much.

Sudharsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 03:50 AM   #2
Junior Member
Location: United Kingdom

Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 3


I would say although gel size selection is a lot more hands on, you definitely get a narrower peak if done correctly. I've only ever tried for 500bp but that worked a lot better using a gel rather than pippin - i just couldn't get the parameters right with the pippin. Also with pippin, in my experience, I have had to load all of my sample and once its done the size selection that's it - its gone, its very hard to recover anything if it doesn't size select correctly. Whereas with gel at least you can take multiple cuts (target, lower, upper, lower lower and upper upper) and freeze them in case your target slice isn't as close to 750bp as you want it. Also - definitely recommend testing your gel/ladder with some controls as I found I would actually have to cut at the 400bp ladder mark in order to get my sample at 500bp.

hope this helps a little bit

Last edited by sward; 10-21-2016 at 04:23 AM.
sward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 06:37 AM   #3
Senior Member
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243

you could also try double bead cleaning. Look at p. 61
Microbial ecologist, running a sequencing core. I have lots of strong opinions on how to survey communities, pretty sure some are even correct.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2016, 03:38 PM   #4
Jafar Jabbari
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,238

I think Pippin will give you the tightest cut in comparison to other methods if correct cassette and loading quantity was used. If you try to get very tight cut then you have to start with a lot more DNA as only a small fraction of DNA will be recovered.

E-gel would be similar (not better) to Pippin but controlling size will be difficult. Manual gel will result in significantly higher number of smaller shadow fragments.
nucacidhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2016, 01:32 AM   #5
Junior Member
Location: Germany

Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. As of now BluePippin is not able to provide the narrowest cut needed. So I will try out bead based double selection and also E-gel and let you know how it works.
Sudharsan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2016, 07:51 AM   #6
Senior Member
Location: Bioo Scientific, Austin, TX, USA

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 119

In my experience the yield from the E-gel is terrible, which makes sense as it doesn't take DNA very long to cross the buffer well. The Pippin should be able to give you as good or better resolution as the E-gel, but with better yield. You may need to optimize the collection range though; for the purpose I was using it for, recovering a 150 bp band with high resolution, the optimal collection range was fairly different from what one would expect.

That being said, I also think that a classic gel purification may be your best bet, for the reasons that sward mentioned.
kerplunk412 is offline   Reply With Quote

bluepippin, e-gel, narrow range, size selection

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 12:36 AM.

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