SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State-of-the art in microRNA alignment HilmarBerger RNA Sequencing 0 08-31-2012 01:20 AM
PubMed: Current state-of-art of sequencing technologies for plant genomics research. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 02-22-2012 02:00 AM
PubMed: Brazilian genome sequencing projects: state of the art. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 12-17-2008 05:03 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-03-2014, 12:10 PM   #1
jparsons
Member
 
Location: SF Bay Area

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 62
Default State of the Art - RNAseq

This question really boils down to the following: If you were to do an RNA-seq experiment today (let's limit the sequencing to illumina) what protocols/kits would you use?

*For single-cell / low-volume (let's assume a few hundred cells)
*For a typical bulk treatment/control experiment

As a bit of background, I've got a few ideas right now that involve

*Demonstrating biases in polyA-selection
*Quantitatively assessing the single-cell seq process

I am wondering whether the first will be of negligible impact because tagmentation makes polyA selection less common, and that left me wondering about the single-cells. Are there clear frontrunners in these areas of prep?

Last edited by jparsons; 10-03-2014 at 03:08 PM.
jparsons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2014, 04:49 AM   #2
nucacidhunter
Jafar Jabbari
 
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,234
Default

Quote:
This question really boils down to the following: If you were to do an RNA-seq experiment today (let's limit the sequencing to illumina) what protocols/kits would you use?

*For single-cell / low-volume (let's assume a few hundred cells)
*For a typical bulk treatment/control experiment
I would use Clontech SMARTer kits for single-cell and Illumina's kits for bulk RNA. There are lots of published methods and also comparative studies of various kits and methods. By the time that comparative studies are published new methods are out so one may not be able to make a performance based decision.

Last edited by nucacidhunter; 10-05-2014 at 06:23 PM.
nucacidhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2014, 08:04 AM   #3
thomasblomquist
Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nucacidhunter View Post
I would use Clontech SMARTer kits for single-cell and Illumina's kits for bulk RNA. There are lots of published methods and also comparative studies of various kits and methods. By the time that comparative studies are published new methods are out so one may not be able to make a performance based decision.
I recommend you peruse the findings from the FDA sponsored Sequencing Quality Control Consortium project http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v3.../nbt.3025.html .

One of the principle findings is that no platform, or kit for library prep, provides TRUE accuracy. There is always bias. There is a large degree of agreement between platforms for detecting FOLD-change. But even this can be different between approaches as FRAGMENTATION is not always uniform from day-to-day tech-to-tech.

The key is to stick to a protocol, and it is probably best to batch cases/controls and process in parallel for RNA-seq experiments.

Other key pieces of information: 1) Favor biological replicates over technical replicates. And 2) ultra-deep sequencing only gets you so much information when you are stochastically sampling biological noise. Be careful how deep you sequence.

Good luck,

This is a big beast to harness.

-Tom Blomquist
thomasblomquist 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 10:43 AM.


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