Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > Sample Prep / Library Generation

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Problematic ddRAD library post-size selection bioanalyzer trace nextgenNOOB Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 09-07-2017 04:56 PM
overamplification of library pari.takle Epigenetics 1 10-03-2016 11:03 PM
Problematic bioanalyzer results (QC after mRNA capture) sbchua.1990 RNA Sequencing 5 07-11-2016 06:17 PM
Problematic Fastq qualities with BWA chris Bioinformatics 4 01-21-2013 12:52 AM
Weird Bioanalyzer Image - Overamplification ETHANol Sample Prep / Library Generation 8 01-16-2012 08:15 AM

Thread Tools
Old 09-27-2019, 01:52 PM   #1
Location: Honolulu, HI

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 40
Default Is this library overamplification? Is this problematic?

Aloha all,

I definitely DO have library overamplification in some of my libraries (as evidenced by a secondary peak, likely the result of the "daisy-chaining" effect). But that's not really what has me curious.

I've attached an image below of the electropherogram of two of my libraries. What has my attention is the strong peak around 400 bp (~ 407 bp), and the small shoulder to the left (~ 380 bp), especially in D702. D709 has both peaks, but there is more "equal" representation of the sizes/fragments across the range. Libraries like D702 are in the majority.

After Pippin-Prep size selection, the elution was split into four separate PCRs, then pooled and cleaned. So this pattern has emerged independently not only across libraries, but presumably across independent PCRs within libraries, with remarkable consistency.

My question is: is this the result of overamplification (my original size-selection encompassed a range of ~ 70 bp, so it's tight), and could this reduce the complexity of my libraries? Or is this simply what I might expect to see given a relatively tight size-selection?

Side-note: I'm using such a tight size-range because my study organism has a 7-8 Gbp genome.

Last edited by Carcharodon; 09-27-2019 at 02:02 PM.
Carcharodon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2019, 11:46 AM   #2
Location: Honolulu, HI

Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 40

Jumping in to address my own question:

The fact that this pattern appears consistently indicates some systematic error/issue. Looking back at old gels, I noticed that some of my digests showed faint evidence of "banding" at lower molecular weights. What's more, the sizes of these bands are consistent across samples/digests.

My new hypothesis is that one of these undigested "bands" is overrepresented in my library, resulting in amplification bias.
Carcharodon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2019, 12:05 PM   #3
Junior Member
Location: Seattle

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9

If it's daisy chaining/bubble product, you should be able to take a small amount, re-amplify it for a few cycles and the secondary peak will go away. As far as over-amplification goes- I usually use NEB and they give you a number of cycles based on your input. It's hard to tell if you've over-amplified or not based on the presence of bubble product alone. It's more of a relationship between the input DNA, the primer concentration, and the number of cycles you've done. Daisy chaining/Bubble product basically means that you have more cycles than primer.
JackieM 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 08:54 PM.

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