SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Bioinformatics > Bioinformatics



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Odd bioanalyzer results beetle_doc Illumina/Solexa 2 08-25-2015 06:28 AM
Bad bioanalyzer results from ChIP DNA biocomputer Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 04-03-2014 10:11 AM
weird bioanalyzer results newendophytologist 454 Pyrosequencing 10 10-02-2012 11:42 AM
Bioanalyzer results - adapter dimers in ChIP-seq library samples Rosmano Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 06-20-2012 06:04 AM
Strange Bioanalyzer results wzombie RNA Sequencing 5 01-11-2012 03:24 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-20-2016, 02:21 AM   #1
tamars
Junior Member
 
Location: Israel

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Default Differences between bioanalyzer results and chip-seq results.

Hi,
I did chip-seq on a histone modification of treated cells and untreated cells, I expect to receive more fragments at the treated fraction and less at the untreated one. But for the sequencing the same concentration of DNA is used that neutralizes differences between the fractions. For example, in the bioanalyzer one sample was 4 times higher in treated then untreated, but I didnít saw this different in the results of MACS2. So, how can I overcome it with bioinformatics tools?
Thanks,
tamars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2016, 04:26 AM   #2
tamars
Junior Member
 
Location: Israel

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Default

I think to do qPCR on some common peaks that l got by MACS2 and follow the factor between the treated cells and untreated cell to decrease the signal peaks. Then I can compare between them.
Any ideas? Did anyone do it?

Last edited by tamars; 03-31-2016 at 04:29 AM.
tamars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2016, 05:25 AM   #3
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,076
Default

Your bioanalyzer traces had 4x more DNA for treated but when libraries were made from your samples they must have been loaded in equimolar amounts on the sequencer. That fact should not affect composition of DNA (it should be sampled equally from all samples).

Have you inspected the alignments to see if data looks reasonable? That you see reads piling up in regions that you expect them to and not where you don't. Perhaps there are other reasons you are not seeing peaks with MACS2.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2016, 05:56 AM   #4
tamars
Junior Member
 
Location: Israel

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Default

I'm not sure I understand what you say. We know that our treatment leads to increase in modification across the whole genome. This is why IP of the treated cells leads to 4 fold more DNA than IP of untreated cells. My concern is that the loading of the "equimolar amounts" on the sequencer actually abolished the differences between the two IPs (of treated vs untreated cells). So how can I quantitatively compare between the two? This is why we thought of finding the difference between the two IPs using qPCR of few specific locations, and then use this factor to correct the signal in the "untreated samples". For example if we find that there is a three fold difference, we can randomly analyze one third of the original fastq reads of the untreated cells, without doing any "library size scaling" during downstream processing.
Does it make sense? Do I miss something?
Thanks,
tamars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2016, 08:09 AM   #5
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,076
Default

To clarify: "equimolar amounts" part was only referring to the libraries getting loaded on the sequencer so that they yield comparable amounts of reads per sample.

As long as your sampling was correct the two samples (treated and untreated) should be representative of the respective populations. If there was a difference that should show up in the results.

Have you inspected the alignments to see if the results (in terms of where you expect the reads to align) appear logical?
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2016, 03:41 PM   #6
nucacidhunter
Jafar Jabbari
 
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamars View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you say. We know that our treatment leads to increase in modification across the whole genome. This is why IP of the treated cells leads to 4 fold more DNA than IP of untreated cells. My concern is that the loading of the "equimolar amounts" on the sequencer actually abolished the differences between the two IPs (of treated vs untreated cells). So how can I quantitatively compare between the two? This is why we thought of finding the difference between the two IPs using qPCR of few specific locations, and then use this factor to correct the signal in the "untreated samples". For example if we find that there is a three fold difference, we can randomly analyze one third of the original fastq reads of the untreated cells, without doing any "library size scaling" during downstream processing.
Does it make sense? Do I miss something?
Thanks,
I see few common sense issues:
1- Higher yield of IP in comparison to control could be due to other factors.
2- If treatment increases histone modification as assumed, then there should be more peaks corresponding to modified region regardless of sequencing depth or input DNA amount used for library prep. For instance if there are 100K region in control then 400K region in treatment should show at least 300K more peaks unless the treatment does not affect number of loci but positions.
3- I assume experiment was set up to test the hypothesis that treatment increases histone modification. Results does not reject null hypothesis.
4- Was there sufficient number of biological replicates?
nucacidhunter 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 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO