SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HiSeq 2000 v3: Bad tiles? rkirkbride Illumina/Solexa 3 01-20-2012 01:30 AM
Illumina HiSeq 2000 publication vinay052003 Illumina/Solexa 1 11-07-2011 02:28 PM
HiSeq 2000 RNA-Seq Mapping Rates Lee Sam Illumina/Solexa 9 12-09-2010 06:39 AM
HiSeq 2000 File Sizes E_Klee Illumina/Solexa 3 09-28-2010 12:16 PM
Illumina's new sequencer: HiSeq 2000 mccullou Illumina/Solexa 14 01-19-2010 12:08 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-12-2011, 05:17 AM   #1
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default HiSeq 2000 sequencing report

We received this report from our latest sequencing project. We've been going back and forth with the core-facility because they want us to use the data from lanes 1,2,3 but we don't want to accept the data since the error rate is so hi. Is this a normal quality report? Should we accept the data from the first 3 lanes?

We also noticed that there is a spike in the error lane in position 22,23,24 and 25, is this normal?
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 05:21 AM   #2
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default Sequencing Report from core facility

forgot the pdf
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Delivery_Note.pdf (1.00 MB, 330 views)
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 05:33 AM   #3
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

Initially since they mention in the report that 3 of the lanes failed then we thought, they will just resequence them, but now they are saying that we should join this with another failed run (this time caused by some faulty chemistry from Illumina) and that then we will get a sufficient number of reads.

What criteria can you use to accept or reject data from a HiSeq ? I know that HiSeq performance varies quite a bit, but there should be a range of what you can call a success or a fail???
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 08:09 AM   #4
monad
Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
Default

You have very noisy quality score from the beginning of sequencing. What was the materials you sequenced? Any chance this is reduced genome or amplicons? Whether passing filtered portion of data is usable or not is up to you depending on criteria you need for your data analysis, but even when you decide to use this data, that should be considered as bonus data and in general core lab should be willing to rerun the failed lanes. Just my 2cents.

Last edited by monad; 05-12-2011 at 08:12 AM.
monad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 08:58 AM   #5
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

It doesn't look that bad to me. I've seen a lot worse than this and the PhiX error rate is low. It's your library not their sequencing.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:22 AM   #6
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

But I thought these reports are only based on PhiX?? Why would my material matter? and why is the PhiX quality significantly lower in lanes 1 to 3 than in 4?
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 09:56 AM   #7
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

So you think a 0.2% difference in error rate is significant with a SD of 0.3?

The important thing is how well your data aligns to your reference genome and the quality values. I bet if they didn't say "failed" in the report you wouldn't even have noticed anything.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:07 AM   #8
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

Well, the problem is the number of reads, we were expecting much more than 8Gbp per lane. If you start with 300Gbp per HiSeq 2000 run? Is this realistic, I took the lower end of the old chem? In my head if you get 300Gbp for 2 cells each with 8 lanes shouldn't you get around 300/16 = ~18Gb per lane?? What is the real world HiSeq throughput(100bp x PE) with the current chemistry?

Last edited by aleferna; 05-12-2011 at 10:14 AM.
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:15 AM   #9
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

For poor libraries we'll see 80 million reads per lane or less if they are really bad. Good libraries give 100 to 130 million per lane.

Once we began quantifying our libraries by QPCR we get much more consistent cluster densities. We get good results using the NuGen kits for PE genomic libraries and the protocol is very fast and easy.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:19 AM   #10
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

When you say 80 million reads is that 8Gb per lane or 16Gb ??
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:24 AM   #11
monad
Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
Default

That is 80M x 200 (2x100), so 16G per lane.
Again, you need to revisit the goal of your sequencing.
Your data may have lots of room to tolerate with marginal quality or not depending on what you'd like to get out of.
monad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:29 AM   #12
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

Thats the problem, its a very complex experiment and I usually through away 95% of the mapped reads, so I'm working with 5% of the library, therefore I get as many reads as I can.
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:34 AM   #13
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

But I mean, if the core facility gives you back 8G instead of 16G how do you know if it was their problem or if it was your sample? So am I getting a crappy run because of my sample or because they still don't have a good batch?

The problem is that they've been having problems with a bad batch of reagents, they've also had problems with the machine itself and they messed up one of other samples because the light went off and they didn't have a backup, we've been waiting for this data for 6 months. So these things makes you question the overall integrity of the service. Also for some reason in both runs its always lane 4 that works the best, so I get a feeling that the machine is not 100% operational, but I don't really know whats going on in that facility.

Last edited by aleferna; 05-12-2011 at 10:42 AM.
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:36 AM   #14
monad
Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
Default

I guess we are talking about two different things here. Criteria for the successful sequencing from the instrument operators standpoint vs data content. Not knowing what is the nature of your input sample, it would be difficult to suggest anything much meaningful here. However, as an example, if your input is reduced representation materials, normal range of cluster density for usual situation may affect the phix control quality as they are spiked-in in your sample lanes. Chances are your sequencing data is as good as you could get. 5% of usable data has nothing to do with sequencing quality. In another word, as NextGenSeq suggested, sequencing was just fine and repeat sequencing most likely will get you same "quality" data.

Last edited by monad; 05-12-2011 at 10:39 AM.
monad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2011, 10:44 AM   #15
aleferna
Senior Member
 
Location: sweden

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 121
Default

Have you heard any news on this "bad batch" of reagents from Illumina, it was supposed to be giving problems last December here in Europe?? Has anybody heard about this? How do you know the batch is bad?
aleferna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2011, 07:58 AM   #16
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

The edge of some flowcells didn't have the oligos deposited correctly for the bridge amplification. This was very evident by looking at the thumbnail images.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 02:37 PM   #17
SMO
Junior Member
 
Location: MO

Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextGenSeq View Post
For poor libraries we'll see 80 million reads per lane or less if they are really bad. Good libraries give 100 to 130 million per lane.

Once we began quantifying our libraries by QPCR we get much more consistent cluster densities. We get good results using the NuGen kits for PE genomic libraries and the protocol is very fast and easy.
What kind of cluster densities do you see with 100-130million reads? How many pM are you loading to get that number of reads?
SMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 01:46 PM   #18
cascoamarillo
Senior Member
 
Location: MA

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 160
Default

Sorry for this naive question but, what is the % Phas./Preph.?
cascoamarillo 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 02:19 PM.


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