Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • Nextera insert sizes larger than expected

    I'm making Nextera libraries on mosquito genomic DNA using Illumina's Nextera kit. I ran the protocol exactly as stated and ran my resulting libraries on a Bioanalyzer HS DNA chip. My insert sizes are larger than I expected (~1000bp observed versus 300-500bp expected) [picture attached--apologies for the crude display of fragment size].

    I spoke with Illumina's technical support and they suggested that this was due to:
    - Too much starting material
    - Tagmentation incubation too short.
    - Tagmentation incubation not warm enough.

    The Illumina protocol states that "libraries with an average size >1kb may require clustering at several concentrations to achieve optimal density," which suggests to me that this isn't a problem and that the libraries can still be sequenced with a bit of optimization.

    We're aligning back to a reference sequence so I don't think large insert sizes will be a problem from the bioinformatic perspective (in fact, they may help with mapping!).

    Is this something I should be concerned with?
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Here are the suggestions offered by tech support:
    -Make sure that there's isn't any ethanol carryover from DNA extraction
    -Elute DNA in water. I used Qiagen AE buffer which is TE, and apparently there is concern that EDTA might interfere with enzyme activity. Interesting since the Epicentre protocol suggested using TE...
    -Check that thermocycler is operating at the correct temperature
    -Decrease amount of starting material
    -If we do decide to go ahead with the sequencing, clusters need to be generated at a lower density because large fragments don't cluster as well.

    I'm going to try making the libraries again with varying amounts of DNA eluted in water since we don't want to reduce the amount of sequence that we generate. Will update once I know how well the modifications work.

    Comment


    • #3
      We have seen the same thing. As previously suggested, reducing the amount of starting material to 25-30 ng helps. Also, try clustering with 6pM. That should result in about 500-600k clusters per mm2. That worked well for us with longer fragments.

      Comment


      • #4
        Was the HS chip run on the sample before or after amplification? I presume before. (If after, then you may just be seeing the old double-peak phenomenon -- called "bird-nesting" by Epicentre.)

        If you want to obtain sequence from the stuff around 1 kb, you would need to get rid of (size select) the shorter fragments. For reasons I don't comprehend, DNA above 1 kb just does not compete well against the shorter fragments during clustering.

        If you just run the library as-is there is a possibility that your results may be biased. That is the Nextera tagmentation transposase may have found pockets of the genome you are sequencing that it really likes, and others it does not. Hence the vaguely bimodal distribution that you see.

        My tendency would be to do a time series, collecting fractions at intervals. Then pool it all, run it on a gel and size select to something reasonable (400-600?). That way, if the transposase is biased you will get a mixture of all the genomic pockets it lands as the larger fragments become more tagmented in the later time fractions.

        Or, you could give it a shot and see if your are seeing high bias.

        --
        Phillip

        Comment


        • #5
          The image is post-amplification and post-AMPure clean up. I ran the same sample pre-amplification, and the peak was at the same place. That suggests to me that it wasn't due to "bird-nesting," and tech support agreed.

          Thanks for the very helpful replies!

          Comment


          • #6
            I tried re-making my Nextera libraries with two modifications.

            1) I suspended my starting DNA in water instead of TE since there was some concern about EDTA interfering with tagmentation.

            2) I tried reducing the amount of starting material (30ng vs 50ng).

            Sample 1=Tagmented DNA post-Zymo cleanup, 30ng starting material in H20
            Sample 2=Tagmented DNA post-Zymo cleanup, 50ng starting material in H20
            Sample 3=Final library, post-PCR cleanup, 30ng starting material in H20
            Sample 4=Final library, post-PCR cleanup, 50ng starting material in H20

            From this, it's clear that starting with DNA in TE or water gives exactly the same results since Sample 4 looks exactly like the libraries prepared in my first attempt. Reducing my amount of input DNA to 30ng did not seem to help since this led to a lower insert size than desired (Sample 3)!

            I guess I'll next try running my tagmentation for different lengths of time and at different temps and running the DNA on a chip.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pjuneja View Post
              I tried re-making my Nextera libraries with two modifications.

              1) I suspended my starting DNA in water instead of TE since there was some concern about EDTA interfering with tagmentation.

              2) I tried reducing the amount of starting material (30ng vs 50ng).

              Sample 1=Tagmented DNA post-Zymo cleanup, 30ng starting material in H20
              Sample 2=Tagmented DNA post-Zymo cleanup, 50ng starting material in H20
              Sample 3=Final library, post-PCR cleanup, 30ng starting material in H20
              Sample 4=Final library, post-PCR cleanup, 50ng starting material in H20

              From this, it's clear that starting with DNA in TE or water gives exactly the same results since Sample 4 looks exactly like the libraries prepared in my first attempt. Reducing my amount of input DNA to 30ng did not seem to help since this led to a lower insert size than desired (Sample 3)!

              I guess I'll next try running my tagmentation for different lengths of time and at different temps and running the DNA on a chip.
              Actually, I think that sample 2 has some >12 kb stuff in it that ended up running into sample 3. Which may sound crazy, but over time I have come to the conclusion that some lanes share part of the same paths. So if they do not completely clear, high molecular weight stuff from an earlier well can end up in a later one.

              Anyway, a time course does sound like a good choice.

              --
              Phillip

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
                Actually, I think that sample 2 has some >12 kb stuff in it that ended up running into sample 3. Which may sound crazy, but over time I have come to the conclusion that some lanes share part of the same paths. So if they do not completely clear, high molecular weight stuff from an earlier well can end up in a later one.

                Anyway, a time course does sound like a good choice.

                --
                Phillip
                I'm pretty sure all detection takes place in the exact same channel...and this is definitely a phenomenon of seeing previous samples bleeding over into the current sample.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ah, good to know! I don't have too much experience with Bioanalyzers. Regardless, it doesn't seem that reducing the amount of starting material to 30ng solved my problem.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I tried incubating my samples on a heat block instead of in a PCR machine in case our machine is mis-calibrated, and I tried increasing the tagmentation step to 10 minutes. My size inserts still has a peak around 1kb.

                    I'm wondering if I'm losing my small fragment sizes during my Zymo clean up. I've been using the column Zymo kit instead of the plate kit since I'm processing a small number of samples. I've been using the spin speeds from the Zymo protocol, but I'm wondering if I need to reduce them. I also noticed that the Zymo protocol suggests a DNA binding buffer:sample ratio of 5:1 for DNA fragments, whereas the Illumina protocol uses 3.6:1. (Interestingly, the original Epicentre protocol used 5:1). Does anyone have a modified protocol using columns that they could share?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What QC do you do on your genomic DNA? Might be worth doing an RNAse treatment + Ampure (or whatever) clean-up on it.

                      rRNA would not be subject to tagmentation. Not sure what size it would run after degrading via the heat and divalent cations likely present in tagmentation and PCR. But I frequently see genomic DNA preps that are >90% RNA. (The record was >99.9% RNA, almost a pure RNA prep.) There is far more RNA than DNA in most cells. A lot of (especially old-school) genomic DNA preps ignore it. So, although a long shot, I thought I should mention it.

                      --
                      Phillip

                      --
                      Phillip

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Bioanalyzer data and cluster density

                        I have been having very similar problems hitting the cluster density sweet spot with Nextera libraries of yeast genomic DNA. HS chip electropherograms of samples after tagmentation or after PCR (when following the Nextera protocol without modification) has given size distributions peaking at 1 kb or higher with the cluster densities using a 10 pM load of such libraries in the 300-400 K/mm2 range. I modified the Nextera protocol three ways (20 ng starting gDNA, 8 PCR cycles with 1 min extension time) and got a poor yield of DNA with a skew to fragments that were too small (peak around 200 bp). I didn't run this last one on the MiSeq. I also tried using the Nextera XT kit and this gave better size distribution, but the cluster density was even lower. I will continue trying modifications to the Nextera protocol, but if anyone knows the secret to 800 K/mm2 and 2 Gb of data I would like to hear it. Thanks!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I also have had problems with getting Nextera libraries of the right size distribution (insert sizes larger than 1kb). I use mouse and human DNA.

                          Having super clean DNA does help. So, instead of using ethanol precipitation to concentrate DNA, I now use the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit, but elute in only 30uL water.

                          Varying the tagmentation time did not help. Using Qiagen Minelute columns seems to work fine (I don't use Zymo). I haven't tried using less than 50ng DNA, but I will in the future.

                          I have also found that non-ideal libraries sequence just fine (size distribution from around 400bps to 1kb).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pjuneja View Post
                            I tried incubating my samples on a heat block instead of in a PCR machine in case our machine is mis-calibrated, and I tried increasing the tagmentation step to 10 minutes. My size inserts still has a peak around 1kb.

                            I'm wondering if I'm losing my small fragment sizes during my Zymo clean up. I've been using the column Zymo kit instead of the plate kit since I'm processing a small number of samples. I've been using the spin speeds from the Zymo protocol, but I'm wondering if I need to reduce them. I also noticed that the Zymo protocol suggests a DNA binding buffer:sample ratio of 5:1 for DNA fragments, whereas the Illumina protocol uses 3.6:1. (Interestingly, the original Epicentre protocol used 5:1). Does anyone have a modified protocol using columns that they could share?
                            I'm using the Zymo plate system as suggested in the illumina nextera protocoll and I get the same giant fragments. So it doesn't seem to be the columns that cause the problem...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              This seems to be the best thread in which to post this info.

                              Since my earlier troubles with low cluster density posted in an earlier thread, the MiSeq has provided as much as 2.5 Gb of good data in a single run using Nextera libraries. The quality of the DNA is important, though I have not identified what impurities have the most affect on cluster density. One must be careful about how they deliver the 50 ng to the Nextera process. Pipetting small volumes from solutions of HMW DNA at high concentration transfers widely different amounts of DNA. Keep solutions below 100 ng/ul. The amount of data the MiSeq delivers varies quite a bit from run to run (500-2500) and I have only some clues about what factors contribute to this variability.

                              I tried using the Bioanalyzer to QC the tagmentation reaction before doing PCR, but this is a huge hassle and I don't recommend it (the quality of this data is unpredictable). However, if you are multiplexing, you must use the Bioanalyzer to QC the libraries themselves (after PCR) so that you get approximately equal representation. It seems the more fragments there are in the size distribution that are <300bp or >1500bp, the lower the cluster density. The amount of smaller fragments depends mostly on the final Ampure cleanup step. You can reduce the amount of the larger fragments by decreasing the PCR extension time from 3 min to 1.5 min. I have also added a couple of extra cycles to the PCR, which increases the fraction of fragments bearing adapters and thus able to form clusters.

                              I hope this is useful information.

                              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
                              51 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