Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Rare cutter not cutting? (ddRAD)

    Greetings, everyone!

    I've been testing my restriction enzymes, and have candidates for a rare cutter and a common cutter. The rare cutter is BamHI, and my frequent/common cutter is PstI.

    I tested each enzyme separately and together (B+P = BamHI + PstI). Each digestion was allowed to proceed for ~ 6 hours, and reaction conditions were set according to the manufacturer's recommendations.

    I ran these on gels next to undigested genomic DNA; I've attached the results below.

    My concern is that there is still a band present in the BamHI lane, though it appears in both cases that it is slightly smaller than the undigested genomic DNA (the ladder is Hyperladder I; sorry for the over-exposure).

    Is this especially problematic, or is this something that is commonly seen when performing these types of digestions with "rare" cutters?

    I will note that I am aiming for a highly reduced-representation library; my organism's genome is ~ 8 Gb in size, and I'm trying to maximize coverage - so an enzyme that doesn't cut very often is desirable. But this has me wondering whether this one is cutting too infrequently (if at all)?

    Many thanks,
    Sean
    Attached Files

  • #2
    It seems that it is cutting. If you are doing ddRAD, you could ligate adapters and do a PCR. Amplification will be a good indication of how it has worked.

    Comment


    • #3
      In theory, both BamHI (GGATCC) and PstI (CTGCAG) should cut with equal frequency in any given genome as they both have a 6bp recognition sequence with the same frequency of A-T and G-C base pairs (33.3% and 66.6%, respectively). The exception would be if one 6 bp motif is far more frequent than the other. For example, if it is sequence in a repetitive element.

      It is possible that your BamHI reaction did not work properly. I would not assume that the slight shift in apparent size is due to cutting as different quantities of DNA and remaining enzyme-bound DNA can cause apparent size differences that do not really exist.

      You may want to do an in silico digestion with BamHI and PstI if you have not tried already and have genome sequence data of your focal species or a close relative available. I have found ddSilico very easy to use (see additional file 1 here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...275/additional)

      If your genome is more AT than GC rich and want to stick with 6bp cutters you may want to give NsiI (ATGCAT)a try as it is 66.6% AT. Since NsiI will leave the same overhang sequence as PstI, you may want to avoid using the two together to avoid problems in library preparation.

      I would add one caveat about using PCR to test if BamHI has worked: If you do not eliminate fragments with two PstI ends from the B+P sample you may still get amplification of fragments of the appropriate size that are essentially useless for high-throughput sequencing as they will not have the appropriate adapters on each end.

      Comment


      • #4
        That theory is incorrect because order of bases in a genome is not random. Two genome with similar size and GC% can have different number of RAD fragments.

        In ddRAD 1st cycle of PCR is primed from rare cuter adapter and fragments ligated to frequent cutter adapter in both ends can not be amplified.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks so much for your replies!

          Originally posted by ATϟGC View Post
          In theory, both BamHI (GGATCC) and PstI (CTGCAG) should cut with equal frequency in any given genome as they both have a 6bp recognition sequence with the same frequency of A-T and G-C base pairs (33.3% and 66.6%, respectively). The exception would be if one 6 bp motif is far more frequent than the other. For example, if it is sequence in a repetitive element.

          It is possible that your BamHI reaction did not work properly. I would not assume that the slight shift in apparent size is due to cutting as different quantities of DNA and remaining enzyme-bound DNA can cause apparent size differences that do not really exist.

          You may want to do an in silico digestion with BamHI and PstI if you have not tried already and have genome sequence data of your focal species or a close relative available. I have found ddSilico very easy to use (see additional file 1 here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-21...275/additional)
          I've been using SimRAD (an in-silico digestion package for R). If memory serves, my simulated genomes resulted in little difference in cutting frequency between the two enzymes.

          However, using the whale shark genome as a proxy (I'm working with a shark from the same superorder...it was as close as I could get!), it appears that PstI cuts about 4.5 times more often than BamHI on average.

          Data from digests performed on human genomes seem to generally support the idea that PstI is a more frequent cutter:

          GGATCC (BamHI) = 126.1 cut-sites/Mbp
          CTGCAG (PstI) = 452.8 cut-sites/Mbp



          Pretty interesting stuff!

          Just to be safe, I've contacted the manufacturer and they are sending a sample replacement. Another test should ease my worries.

          Originally posted by ATϟGC
          I would add one caveat about using PCR to test if BamHI has worked: If you do not eliminate fragments with two PstI ends from the B+P sample you may still get amplification of fragments of the appropriate size that are essentially useless for high-throughput sequencing as they will not have the appropriate adapters on each end.
          This is true, although according to my simulations, and based on my adapter/oligo design, only fragments with cutsites from BamHI should be amplified. So there will be a few BamHI/BamHI fragments, but they should (in theory) be in the minority, if BamHI is indeed a rare cutter.

          SimRAD simulations with the whale shark draft genome seem to indicate that these fragments will make up 10% - 15% of my total number/volume, but I'm hesitant to trust these simulations quite so explicitly.

          Thanks again for your responses. This forum is a wonderful resource, and I appreciate all of your advice! I'll do my best to pay it forward.

          Comment


          • #6
            You are correct nucacidhunter that the theory does not always hold true. I apologize that my second sentence did not clearly convey that it is an approximation based on the assumption that base order is completely random, which obviously is not true. I also should have mentioned that I was assuming that PstI was the P1 end (rare cutter) for the first round of PCR when in this case it should be BamHI since it does appear to cut less often. I know that Peterson et al (2012) warn of potential P1-P1 amplification products so I thought I would mention it as a possibility.

            Sean, your evidence certainly suggests that PstI is cutting much more frequently than BamHI, so what you see on the gel is likely the real deal.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carcharodon View Post
              SimRAD simulations with the whale shark draft genome seem to indicate that these fragments will make up 10% - 15% of my total number/volume, but I'm hesitant to trust these simulations quite so explicitly.
              From those 10-15% only a small subset would be in size-selection window and end up in ddRAD library. In my experience they are below 3% although it would vary from genome to genome and the enzymes used for digestion. They can cause overestimation of library concentration by qPCR resulting in slightly lower cluster number than expectation.

              If you suspect that your batch of enzyme has lost activity you can digest another species DNA such as E coli with it for testing.

              I have had species that like yours did not seem has been digested and I could not see any fragment below 1kb on Bioanalyser HS DNA Chip (prominently a large peak at higher molecular weight) but after double digest and size-selection in a range below 400 bp, PCR yielded good libraries and results were fine.

              Comment


              • #8
                Are you sure you didn't switch the samples during loading? I mean an 8GB genome, that is probably a plant. Plants with genomes that large are massively cytosine-methylated. PstI is blocked by CNG methylation (but not by CG methylation!)
                So, anyway, the lane you labeled "BamHI" looks like typical large genome plant genomic DNA digest with PstI.
                Of course this may not be plant DNA. In which case, never mind...
                --
                Phillip

                Comment


                • #9
                  Check out the username of the OP, pmiguel.

                  and http://www.genomesize.com/result_species.php?id=1701
                  Providing nextRAD genotyping and PacBio sequencing services. http://snpsaurus.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SNPsaurus View Post
                    Check out the username of the OP, pmiguel.

                    and http://www.genomesize.com/result_species.php?id=1701
                    Ah.

                    --
                    Phillip

                    Comment

                    Latest Articles

                    Collapse

                    • 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
                    • seqadmin
                      The Impact of AI in Genomic Medicine
                      by seqadmin



                      Artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic vision to a mainstream technology, highlighted by the introduction of tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini. In recent years, AI has become increasingly integrated into the field of genomics. This integration has enabled new scientific discoveries while simultaneously raising important ethical questions1. Interviews with two researchers at the center of this intersection provide insightful perspectives into...
                      02-26-2024, 02:07 PM

                    ad_right_rmr

                    Collapse

                    News

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-14-2024, 06:13 AM
                    0 responses
                    32 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-08-2024, 08:03 AM
                    0 responses
                    71 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-07-2024, 08:13 AM
                    0 responses
                    80 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-06-2024, 09:51 AM
                    0 responses
                    68 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Working...
                    X