SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Whole Blood RNA-Seq Libraries and globins jbrowne73 Sample Prep / Library Generation 11 10-16-2013 01:20 PM
full sequencing on refrigerated blood xyzzy123 General 4 01-03-2012 02:30 PM
Agencourt RNAdvance Blood kit bethedelblute Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 09-16-2011 08:46 AM
Cufflinks pipeline for splicing differences between animal samples seqhorn Bioinformatics 0 07-08-2011 02:23 AM
RNA from blood fractions cjharrys Illumina/Solexa 0 10-29-2010 03:05 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-19-2010, 11:23 PM   #1
sehrrot
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 58
Default LCL vs whole blood samples? (shearing differences)

Dear all,
I sheared lymphoblastoid cell line (LCL) samples and whole blood samples by covaris S2. Then, I ran bioanalyzer to check their length.
Interestingly, unlike whole blood samples that showed typical graph after covaris shearing, sheared LCL samples looked different
First, a bit wider than whole blood samples
Second, low fluorescent unit -> I measured conc' again with nanodrop but same as whole blood.
Third, their graph started from little bit higher than baseline.



I assumed that fragmentation of episome is a reason why a bunch of small fragments are. But I cannot understand low concentration and wider distribution.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg data1 wb.JPG (71.5 KB, 17 views)
File Type: jpg data 2 lcl.JPG (70.6 KB, 18 views)
sehrrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 08:24 AM   #2
upenn_ngs
Member
 
Location: philadelphia

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 70
Default

What is the downstream application? Looks like the LCL sample concentration was lower than expected, so although the same covaris profile was used the two samples run on the bioanalyzer much differently.

Also, if you are sequencing be aware LCL samples have a high number of SNP artifacts from transformation.

Last edited by upenn_ngs; 09-20-2010 at 08:28 AM.
upenn_ngs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2010, 04:15 PM   #3
sehrrot
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by upenn_ngs View Post
What is the downstream application? Looks like the LCL sample concentration was lower than expected, so although the same covaris profile was used the two samples run on the bioanalyzer much differently.

Also, if you are sequencing be aware LCL samples have a high number of SNP artifacts from transformation.
I used same protocols, including time, intensity, and volume, and application (covaris S2). Also, I ran bioa' with other samples in same condition.

These LCL samples are transformed by EBV. I haven't found any papers that EBV change the host genome. If you know any papers for EBV integration, could you cite them on here?
sehrrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 08:03 AM   #4
upenn_ngs
Member
 
Location: philadelphia

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 70
Default

Good question-- I presume the variability is due to a single cell, or subset of cells taking over the culture during transformation, and additional mutations during division. For whole exome resequencing, we have seen 10,000-30,000 more SNPs pass filter in LCL samples vs. blood.
upenn_ngs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2010, 11:56 PM   #5
sehrrot
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by upenn_ngs View Post
Good question-- I presume the variability is due to a single cell, or subset of cells taking over the culture during transformation, and additional mutations during division. For whole exome resequencing, we have seen 10,000-30,000 more SNPs pass filter in LCL samples vs. blood.
Yes, we used two LCL samples, which of one has been cultured for a long time. We are also expecting EBV-transformed one has some SNPs but I'm just wonder why it was shown broader. Maybe LCL-transformed cell's genome might have become fragile cause of virus integration (consistently it would take more CNV I think).
sehrrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2010, 11:06 AM   #6
Hamid
Senior Member
 
Location: San Diego, CA

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 105
Default

Hi Sehrrot,

I think the diffrences you are noticing are simply due to concentration differences of the samples. I think it is essential not only to carry out a nanodrop analysis, but also a Qbit or similar picogreen analysis for concentration. My guess is that if you run a Qbit analysis you will notice that the concentration of the two samples will be different unlike the uv/vis analysis on the nanodrop.
what settings, volume, buffer type, and tube type are you using for the fragmentation?

Thank you

Hamid
Hamid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2010, 08:24 PM   #7
sehrrot
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 58
Default

Hi Hamid,

Thank you for your reply.
I did QBit, nanodrop and Epoch and also did 5 different concentration in bioa' analysis.
Even Qbit gave more accurate results, all three method showed almost same result.

But my question is why LCL transformed sample showed little bit higher start region (10bp~80bp) and why LCL transformed samples generally showed lower concentration than whole blood sample.

We used recommended covaris setting with various setting, including 100, 120 ul, 130 ul shearing and TE buffer, MiliQ water shearing.
sehrrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2010, 02:08 AM   #8
josdegraaf
Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 33
Default

your lcl samples fragmented to much smaller sizes, and you lost a lott of those during cleanup?
josdegraaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
lcl, shearing

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 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO