SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > 454 Pyrosequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best primers for 16S amplicon sequencing dca 454 Pyrosequencing 9 09-11-2012 10:49 AM
Ligating titanium adapters to 16S amplicons... dc3000 454 Pyrosequencing 3 02-07-2011 10:59 AM
HPLC purification of 454 fusion primers skolyar 454 Pyrosequencing 2 09-22-2010 01:40 PM
De-Novo transcriptome with 454 Titanium yvan.wenger RNA Sequencing 3 10-29-2009 01:19 AM
Recommendation from 454 for Titanium PE/Shotgun hlu 454 Pyrosequencing 0 02-18-2009 11:16 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-25-2011, 11:36 AM   #1
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default 454 Titanium 16S HMP primers?

We are trying to get started analyzing 16S RNA using the primers and protocols posted by the Human Microbiome Project (see here : V1-V3 and V3-V5 primer sets). Our problem is that we are getting the majority of our reads removed by the "short quality" filter. We started with 2.5M reads passing the key sequence, but about 1.8M are failing the short quality filter, and we only get 295,000 passing all filters. This is with the 2.5.3 version of the 454 software, which was actually an improvement on the previous version, which only gave ~100,000 passing filters.

On the theory that there might be short fragments in the sample, we repurified everything on Ampure and ran 2/8s of a plate but didn't see any improvement.

Is anyone else using these HMP primers? Have you seen this short quality filter problem? Are there adjustments to the sample prep or the analysis software that we can make? Could it be something with the density of beads, are we loading too many? Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2011, 02:52 PM   #2
nickloman
Senior Member
 
Location: Birmingham, UK

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 356
Default

You may find my recent blog post on this subject helpful
http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/blog...on-processing/
nickloman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 02:28 AM   #3
flxlex
Moderator
 
Location: Oslo, Norway

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 415
Default

Indeed, study the blog post, as it looks like you need to recall the bases with changed filter settings...
flxlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 05:56 AM   #4
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default

Nick, thanks for the link. I actually have read your blog and even commented once but hadn't seen that post. I am going to get with our core and have them try those adjustments and will report back.
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 07:23 AM   #5
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default

Well, I tried editing that template file and re-running and even fewer reads pass the filters, though now they are lost in the dot filter rather than the short quality. I am going to try the shotgun and the modified approach here to get all keypass reads today.
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 03:50 AM   #6
Palecomic
Member
 
Location: London

Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 34
Default

Have commented on Nick's blog and updated here: http://seqanswers.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=27 we're using the V3-V5 primers and you can shift some of those medium length reads upwards whilst using the shotgun (or alternative amplicon processing) by changing the emPCR conditions a bit
Palecomic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2011, 06:15 AM   #7
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default

Thanks for the input, Mike (Palecomic). I can say that I tried all of those filter changes I mentioned earlier and nothing worked, even the modification that was supposed to give all key pass reads doesn't work as advertised. In fact every modification I tried gave fewer passed filter reads, although it varied which filter was catching them.

We looked for "cryptic" small fragments based on information from another sequencing center - using the quality control PCR from the short fragment removal procedure (see Roche Technical Bulletin TCB No. 2011-002), but haven't found short fragments in our libraries.

We are just about to do another run, with the V1-3 primers only, shortening the initial sample PCR from 30 to 25 cycles, with further modifications to the EM-PCR - I think cutting the primer concentration and using fewer molecules per bead. If it works I will find out the exact differences from our core folks and post here.
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 04:55 AM   #8
Biohazard0806
Junior Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Hello cliffbeall,

we also have the problem with the reads removed by the short quality filter by using the GS Junior system. It would be nice to know if and how you solved that issue.

Thanks
Biohazard0806 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 07:06 AM   #9
cliffbeall
Senior Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
Default

Things are working better. Anthony.287, who runs the instrument, posted info on a recent run here. The crucial parameter seems to be copies per bead in the emulsion PCR, reduced from 2 to 0.08 (!).

Our experience is with the Titanium though, maybe someone can comment on junior-specific issues, if any?

Last edited by cliffbeall; 05-10-2012 at 07:06 AM. Reason: grammar
cliffbeall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2012, 06:52 AM   #10
Anthony.287
Member
 
Location: Ohio

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Biohazard0806 View Post
Hello cliffbeall,

we also have the problem with the reads removed by the short quality filter by using the GS Junior system. It would be nice to know if and how you solved that issue.

Thanks
I don't think that we ever actually had small fragments in Cliff's libraries; the short quality filter category actually includes a number of filters. So, reads that were failing the valley filter, for example, were included in the short quality filter, leading all of us to think that we had short fragments, even though we couldn't find them. As the enrichment percentages got closer and closer to 8%, the number filtered out with short quality went down. We had mixed beads and overloaded PTPsd, not short fragments. Another tip I discovered recently is to underload the PTP when sequencing amplicons; this can help reduce crosstalk between wells. For example, load 1.7M beads instead of 2M. It does seem to help.
Anthony.287 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 07:47 PM.


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