Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa

View Poll Results: Should I expect consistent clustering between different pools/libraries?
Yes 0 0%
No 2 100.00%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RNA-Seq on clonal pools anlun RNA Sequencing 0 10-07-2016 07:38 AM
RNAseq for 3 different Pools arcolombo698 RNA Sequencing 3 11-23-2013 01:22 AM
Read1 and Read2 are not consistent priya Illumina/Solexa 2 07-16-2013 03:42 AM
amplification of indexed pools yaximik General 2 10-08-2011 07:35 PM

Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2018, 08:29 AM   #1
Junior Member
Location: Los Angeles

Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 1
Default Consistent clustering between different pools?

Hi All,

I have a question related to cluster density as it relates to getting consistent results between different runs. I am doing RNA-seq using Miseq v3 and when I first started, I got cluster densities around 700K and 950K from loading my DNA samples at 13.5pm for my first two runs. I tried bumping up to 15pm loading concentration to increase cluster density and my cluster density dropped (450K). This is confusing since loading more DNA have should lead to higher cluster density.

From that, I can reasonably infer that loading my pool at 13.5pM for my last run would have given me significantly lower cluster density than what I got from the first two runs. I ran a different set of libraries for each run but the prep kit, quantification and pooling strategy were the same. Does anyone have experience with different libraries/pools generated and quantified using the same exact protocol clustering at different densities even when loaded at the same concentration?
Beckford_Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2018, 02:46 AM   #2
Location: UK

Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 31


It's tough to get an idea of what is happening just by cluster density and loading concentration alone.

- For the 450 K/mm2 run, what were your pass filter and Q-scores looking like compared to the two successful runs?
- What type of samples are you using and what sequencing are you performing (amplicon, WGS etc.)?
- Are you spiking in PhiX to each of your runs? If so, at what %?
- Have you taken a look at the raw cluster image files? Sometimes, if the MiSeq is overclustered the machine has a hard time defining clusters and it can return a density number which isn't indicative of the actual clustering.
- What is your quantification method? Qubit + fragment analysis?

It would be cool if you could even supply a screenshot of the summary and metrics tab from SAV to further diagnose the problem.
GSviral is offline   Reply With Quote

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 09:35 AM.

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