Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • short read length on XL+

    I have problem with XL+ machine. Since we've got an upgrade last fall, we have not been able to get a good run. Our first run of control beads gave us about 740 bp average read length, and since we are having problems, recently we did another control beads run which gave us about 650bp average length. Our samples consistently produce 450-470 average length. My initial thought was that 1600-1800 recommended length of library is too high. So I prepared two sets of libraries with 1100 and 1500 average length, did emPCR, collected supernatant after first denaturation step, concentrated it and ran on BioAnalyzer. The pictures are attached. The conclusion is that there is very small deference between 1100, 1500 and 1800 bp libraries. But it does not bring me closer to the solution of our problem.
    Does anybody have a similar problem? What is the way to overcome?
    Any thoughts?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Once our instrument was finally fixed (or is it?) we ran into the same problem. Our first run gave a peak around 600 bases, not bad relative to Titanium, but not near the promised 750-800 bp. After emailing Roche, we were told that the learning curve for FLX+ is longer than for Titanium, so they advised us to keep trying (nice...). Also, they specifiy the library requirements as follows: "peak size ranging from 1400bp to 1800bp with less than 10% of the fragments being smaller than 650 bp, and a peak as sharp as possible"; also, they would worry more about too short fragments, relative to too long ones.

    So, that's what we will try, I guess...

    That said, there seems to be very mixed results with FLX+, some labs get it going, some labs, like ours, struggle for a long time...

    Comment


    • #3
      We are yet to have our 1st FLX+ run. Our upgrade was in January and only this Monday the Tf run was performed due to lack of reagents. After the run was processed I sent the run report to Roche support, and only then they realized we didn´t have the sofware version 2.6 installed! When the upgrade was done Roche´s engineer installed the new version on our server but apparently not all the parts.
      Now we have to re-process and send the results again.

      Problem is: since the run ended yesterday the sequencer did not stop. That Ok button that shows up when the run is finished, didn´t appear and the sequencer light is still green. It appears as some process is still running even though it says the run ended. I already reported the problem to Roche, and they haven´t given me an answer yet.
      I thought about hiting abort but I don´t wanna do that without Roche´s answer because I am afraid of messing up with the software. Any ideas?

      As for FLX+ runs we already have 4 libraries made according to Roche´s especifications: "peak size ranging from 1400bp to 1800bp with less than 10% of the fragments being smaller than 650 bp, and a peak as sharp as possible", and I am really looking forward to running then but we still are waiting on XL+ reagents.

      We got parts of the kits starting in Dec., and the XL+ reagent supposedly arrives till tomorrow. 2 months to receive a complete kit. Making science in Brazil is really tough!

      As soon as I get some data, I shall report.

      Comment


      • #4
        MissDNA,

        recently we had exactly the same software problem as yours
        Originally posted by MissDNA View Post

        Problem is: since the run ended yesterday the sequencer did not stop. That Ok button that shows up when the run is finished, didn´t appear and the sequencer light is still green. It appears as some process is still running even though it says the run ended. I already reported the problem to Roche, and they haven´t given me an answer yet.
        I thought about hiting abort but I don´t wanna do that without Roche´s answer because I am afraid of messing up with the software. Any ideas?
        I checked the sequencing log and since it said the sequencing has completed, I aborted the run. After data analysis everything looks good. We seems did not mess anything by aborting the run after sequencing was done.

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks, vlee2. I talked to Roche´s tech support and he told me to abort the run. The software was still stuck, then we did a system stop and aftwards system stop. Now we are going to run a pre wash and if everything works well put a XLR70 run tomorrow, still with version 2.5.3. Next week we will upgrade our software to 2.6.

          I think the problem was our GS sequencer software was already version 2.6 but gsRunProcessor still 2.5.3. Once we upload the new version we are gonna re-analyze the runs performed since the upgrade to see if it gets better. For XLR70 runs our machine seems to be performing better after the upgrade. Go figure.

          Comment


          • #6
            So now we had our 1st XL+ using a "normal" sample. Before sequencing I sent the bionalyzer data to Roche support and they said the library looked according to specified.

            The output looks like an ok Titanium run. I already sent the reports to Roche and will wait on their feedback. I am disappointed but honestly after reading so many complains here, I didn´t have my expectations set too high.

            I asked several times their specialist about the peak size around 1400-1800 bp being too long, he did not answer me. What I don´t understand is why they didn´t change cDNA library prep. leaving the peak around 900-1200 bp and bumped RL+ sizes that high. Does anyone know?
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              Here is some output of some of the XL+ runs I've done. The latest run had much shorter fragments, but was apparently just above the minimum spec. The earlier runs were all pretty good and well within or above their specs. I wonder how much sample type affects read length? The recent run with shorter lengths was of metagenomic samples, whereas the longer lengths were more from bacteria, plasmids, viral samples.
              Attached Files

              Comment


              • #8
                RCJK, it is nice to see XL+ can work. Our sample was a metagenome and we have another 2 runs on that project to perform. Have you had a good metagenomic run? For XLR70 some of our best runs were from metagenomic samples. I am still waiting on some Roche feedback about my case.

                Comment


                • #9
                  RCJK - it IS nice seeing some XL+ results. We are getting ready to do our first XL+ run on bacterial genome rapid libraries. What did you find worked as cpb ratio on your libraries?
                  Again, thanks for sharing info as we seem to manage somewhat in the dark, too.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    MissDNA-I've only done 1 XL+ run with metagenomic samples (the 3rd image I posted) so maybe it was a fluke that it was shorter? I don't recall having any specifically bad XLR70 metagenomic runs in the past.

                    LAH-I have started using the Kapa kits to quantify my libraries (with an increased extension time). Based on those quantifications cpb inputs have ranged from ~0.1-0.4, but with most around 0.3cpb. For my first XL+ run, the libraries were quantified w/ the Roche adaptors as per the RL protocol, for those libraries a cpb of 4 seemed to work fairly well.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by vlee2 View Post
                      I have problem with XL+ machine. Since we've got an upgrade last fall, we have not been able to get a good run. Our first run of control beads gave us about 740 bp average read length, and since we are having problems, recently we did another control beads run which gave us about 650bp average length. Our samples consistently produce 450-470 average length. My initial thought was that 1600-1800 recommended length of library is too high. So I prepared two sets of libraries with 1100 and 1500 average length, did emPCR, collected supernatant after first denaturation step, concentrated it and ran on BioAnalyzer. The pictures are attached. The conclusion is that there is very small deference between 1100, 1500 and 1800 bp libraries. But it does not bring me closer to the solution of our problem.
                      Does anybody have a similar problem? What is the way to overcome?
                      Any thoughts?
                      So could you give more details about these pictures? The first 2 look very different from the second two. But which is what sample? Also what type of bioanalyzer chip did you run? What was your concentration method? What percent of your recovered supernatant did you run?

                      --
                      Phillip

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        @RCJK: Some of those runs you show are really good, and we can as of today only dream of them. This again comes back to the apparent incredible site-to-site variation in the implementation of GS FLX+. We are actually getting another, new(!) GS FLX+ instrument on loan for testing soon...
                        Last edited by flxlex; 03-29-2012, 02:37 AM. Reason: Clarified

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MissDNA View Post
                          I asked several times their specialist about the peak size around 1400-1800 bp being too long, he did not answer me. What I don´t understand is why they didn´t change cDNA library prep. leaving the peak around 900-1200 bp and bumped RL+ sizes that high. Does anyone know?
                          I am not sure what you mean with "RL+" but if I got your question right, the cDNA templates are more prone to form secondary structures, impairing the polymerase movement. Therefore, would you use 1400-1800bp inserts most likely the polymerase would fall apart the template somewhere along the way. In contrast, if you insert inserts in the range 900-1200bp hopefully less 2D structures and also weaker would form, giving you some hope the polymerase can reach the 3'-end. I think this is quite a good advice from Roche, really.

                          In genomic DNA, there are are not many reasons to await a 2D structure formed solely by its single chain. That is why for shotgun DNA you may be willing to get longer inserts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by martin2 View Post
                            I am not sure what you mean with "RL+" but if I got your question right, the cDNA templates are more prone to form secondary structures, impairing the polymerase movement. Therefore, would you use 1400-1800bp inserts most likely the polymerase would fall apart the template somewhere along the way. In contrast, if you insert inserts in the range 900-1200bp hopefully less 2D structures and also weaker would form, giving you some hope the polymerase can reach the 3'-end. I think this is quite a good advice from Roche, really.

                            In genomic DNA, there are are not many reasons to await a 2D structure formed solely by its single chain. That is why for shotgun DNA you may be willing to get longer inserts.
                            I meant Rapid Library construction for XL+ chemistry. Thanks for you explanation, noboby in Roche has ever explained to me that way.

                            However I still think 1400-1800 bp range is too large, and perhaps one of the sources of the problems we have with XL+ runs. It seems to me that when we have a library with those very large fragments, the slightest contamination with shorter fragments, which cannot be seen using the bionalyzer could the cause of the bellow specs runs we have been observing, since small fragments will amplify preferably than the very large one during emPCR.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I don´t know why Roche decided to leave the cDNA library peak at 900-1200 bp, but one of the reasons might be that higher than that we can start loosing the smallest cDNAs encoding for small proteins of 10 kDa and above...

                              Comment

                              Latest Articles

                              Collapse

                              • seqadmin
                                Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
                                by seqadmin


                                Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
                                03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
                              • 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

                              ad_right_rmr

                              Collapse

                              News

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:37 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                              0 responses
                              9 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                              0 responses
                              49 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                              0 responses
                              67 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Working...
                              X