![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
weird gel-size selection of 454 library | havana | Sample Prep / Library Generation | 0 | 03-22-2012 01:29 AM |
library gel purification with SYBR gold problems | shawpa | Sample Prep / Library Generation | 3 | 01-16-2012 01:25 PM |
New, Completely Gel-Free, DNA Library Prep Protocol | Bioo Scientific | Vendor Forum | 1 | 01-11-2012 08:49 AM |
Truseq RNA library has 2 peak on bioanalyzer | houda | Sample Prep / Library Generation | 7 | 07-06-2011 11:39 AM |
Nanodrop vs bioanalyzer for library quantification | k-gun12 | Illumina/Solexa | 1 | 09-24-2010 08:26 AM |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools |
![]() |
#1 |
Junior Member
Location: cambridge Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
|
![]()
I'm having a strange problem with my library prep for Illumina. Unfortunately I have no been able to find any information on this, not here nor from Agilent, so i have to assume that i'm the only one with this problem...
![]() maybe i can get some feedback from you guys ![]() My post-PCR RAD libraries (i.e. dsDNA 300-500bp) are clearly visible on my agarose gels ![]() but hardly or mostly not at all on the DNA1000 Bioanalyzer chips ![]() The Bioanalyzer runs look fine, i.e. the ladder is excellent and I cannot detect any problems with the lower and higher marker peaks, i.e. the matrix and peak detection seems to work fine. Between those peaks though the electrogram is completely flat, no DNA at all ![]() ![]() Has anybody seen/heard of this before? any idea what I can do?? I guess the problem is most likely with the Bioanalyzer but... ![]() any comments appreciated!! cheers P |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Junior Member
Location: India Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1
|
![]()
Hi P, try it on DNA High sensitivity chip.
Cheerz.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Senior Member
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
|
![]()
There are lots of possibilities. Here is a list in order of what seems most likely to me:
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Junior Member
Location: cambridge Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
|
![]()
Thanks for your input guys, i really appreciate!
as of your comments: a) will do! couldn't do it so far because we don't have them in my lab and agilent was unwilling to give me a sample... ![]() b) lots of good ideas, thanks! 1. no dilution. 2. yep, my agarose gel is more sensitive than the BA chip! i just don't get why ![]() the DNA1000 is supposed to detect 0.5ng/ul, Etbr-agarose gels usually require ~10ug... according to my guesstimates based on ladder intensity i have plenty of DNA to detect with the BA but i don't! i considered old reagents but the beautiful marker peaks and BA ladder seemed to indicate that everything is working fine... still this is the most parsimonious explanation for me. positive gels were obtained with very different gel parameters, i.e. 1-2%, 100-200V, 30-60min, different loading dyes... 3. yep, i considered that too but that'd mean tons of contamination at just the right size + my negative controls are fine (i.e. empty) + i should detect the contamination on the BA as well + no clear contamination pattern etc. etc. 4. i read about ssDNA BA problems but i though PCR products are by definition dsDNA... single-stranded PCR products seemed like an oxymoron too me! definitely a cool idea, thanks! i obviously can't exclude that but it seems unlikely given that a) the band is just the right size on the gel (i.e. not faster) and i have nothing on the BA (i.e. no big unexplained band) 5. also a very cool idea that i hadn't considered! as of now, i looks like i'm having a fairly rare problem that might cannot be easily explained. i think i'll ask a friend in another lab to run a chip for me on another BA with other reagents... i.e. changing everything and hope that everything changes :-) i'll report back! cheers! P |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Location: Germany Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 33
|
![]()
In case you are dealing with a smear, your sensitivity of 0.5 ng/µl for the DNA1000 doesn't hold true, as these are defined to be in a (sharp) peak.
For a smear, the sensitivity will be lower (maybe ~10fold). |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Junior Member
Location: cambridge Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4
|
![]()
I agree with Vkkolla. We run all of our post-PCR samples on a high sensitivity chip. Should solve your problem.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Junior Member
Location: cambridge Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3
|
![]()
hey guys
looks like the price goes to... vkkolla & miss_shell for suggesting the high sensitivity chip... it showed beautiful libraries, which i accepted instantly ![]() after reading up a bit more here, i found out that most people do qc with BA chip but don't trust its quantification at all. subsequent quantifications of my libraries with the qubit system were 2-10x higher than BA quantifications and coincided much better with gel observations. I thus went with that and am now waiting for the results from sequencing. it doesn't all make sense to me ![]() wish me good luck :-) cheers P |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Tags |
agarose, bioanalyzer, dna1000, library prep |
Thread Tools | |
|
|