SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Maximum number of cycles from 300-cycle MiSeq kit... ECO Illumina/Solexa 13 11-09-2012 04:51 AM
MiSeq 500 cycle kits available yet? Bucky Illumina/Solexa 6 08-14-2012 12:11 PM
Error rate of 51 cycle mRNA Seq Bruce E RNA Sequencing 1 05-19-2009 09:25 PM
Spikes in error rate by cycle and tile anders Illumina/Solexa 4 10-01-2008 10:08 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-2014, 06:46 AM   #1
Luvs_2_sequence
Junior Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
Exclamation MiSeq error rate for 600 cycle PE

Was a bit alarmed at the run for 600 cycle chemistry we did the other day. Error profile shows that along the read, the error rate increases dramatically. Even only 200 cycles into the first read, the error rate has already surpassed 1%
The error rate for read 2 is similar.

Is this expected? We were a bit shocked to see this high of any error rate and was wondering if others were seeing that doing 600 cycle runs.

Let me know
Luvs_2_sequence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2014, 12:43 PM   #2
nickloman
Senior Member
 
Location: Birmingham, UK

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 356
Default

Yes, we are too.
nickloman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2014, 07:40 AM   #3
DJ Flowcell
Member
 
Location: Boston

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Default

Yeah, we are experiencing the same thing. The chemistry has been improved though, although the cycle time is back up to 5min (up from 4.3min for the v2 kits). By the end of the first 300bp read, for %perfect reads, the 0 error metric is down to about 45%
DJ Flowcell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 06:08 AM   #4
WhiteSeal
Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 13
Default

We are seeing a lot of issues with these 600 runs. There is a significant decrease in Qscores around 200 cycles (first read) and then around cycle 450 of the second read (a picture of %>Q30 is attached). We've had a lot of data that just isn't good enough for data analysis.. and I mean a lot of data. Certainly it is not what the kit should return as a result. I mean it is a 2x300 kit. Not a 2x maybe 300 if you are lucky. We've contacted illumina about this and have received compensation for 3 kits already (hoping for more) but has anyone else tried this.

WhiteSeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 06:34 AM   #5
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,730
Default

Drop-off in quality accompanies presence of short inserts (when one would start reading to the adapter on other end). Have you checked/eliminated that possibility for this data set. It seems to happen more often that one would expect.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2014, 11:06 AM   #6
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

IMHO the v4 chemistry isn't worth the extra money.

How many reads did you get?
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 01:35 AM   #7
WhiteSeal
Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 13
Default

@GenoMax: samples were checked on BioAnalyzer to check the length of the fragments (all >700bp) so this should not happen. Also, we have seen this with almost all our 600PE v3 runs on the MiSeq.

@NextGenSeq: MiSeq run 600PEv3 with 566k clusters gave - according to illumina output - ~14M reads, but in read two at cycle 550 already 5M reads have a Qscore <Q30 (not good), and at cycle 600 12M reads have a Qscore <Q30 (really not good). And then this was a 'good' run.
WhiteSeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 02:16 AM   #8
nucacidhunter
Senior Member
 
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,144
Default

The explanation so far leaves two possibilities open. One is library diversity (particularly in the positions with low Q scores) and the other is faulty reagents. Illumine has had some recalls recently. I wonder what was %PF for the run.
nucacidhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 03:04 AM   #9
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,730
Default

@WhiteSeal: Has this data been analyzed and you are sure the sequence (irrespective of Q-scores) looks ok (no adapters etc).

Points mentioned by nucacidhunder are very relevant. If the nucleotide diversity drops late into the read then that would also lead to Q-score drops. Since you have been in touch with Illumina tech support if you used reagents that were recalled they should alert you. Wouldn't hurt to proactively check on that possibility too.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 04:10 AM   #10
avo
Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 14
Default

I'm a bit confused by the %Q30 graph shown here. I have seen 600V3 runs on our MiSeq that looked much worse. Yet we generally cluster well above 566k, so that might be a factor. Nevertheless I would be perfectly satisfied to see a Q30 graph like this. Even the example runs I looked at on Illuminas BaseSpace for the 600V3 kit are worse (SmallGenomesBcereusRhodo).

Because all our runs met the Illumina specs of a Total % ≥ Q30 of 70%, i never thought about complaining.
We observe this for a variety of different samples using TruSeq LT as well as TruSeq PCR-free libraries. Based on the %Base plots and the output of the adapter trimming there shouldn't be a significant problem with the fragment size (>800 bp) either.

Despite that we lose bases from the ends of both reads during the quality trimming it doesn't have a major impact on our analysis.

Does anyone experience similar issues?
avo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 06:46 AM   #11
WhiteSeal
Member
 
Location: Netherlands

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 13
Default

@nucacidhunter: indexing was fine. 76 samples, barcode variation for each base was evenly distributed. So no issue there.

@GenoMax: I have not had the opportunity to look into the data myself, but customer is complaining that Qscores at final 50 cycles is well below expected.

@avo: I was wondering.. you say you have seen worse and you just trim the data, but with so many reads not making it till the end then what is the use of running a 600PE kit. I (and customer also) expect at least 70% of all data to have a >Q30. In this case 70% is around cycle 550...

As for faulty reagents. This was actually a replacement kit from Illumina for one of their faulty ones. Also, I was proactive and complained and replacement has been received to run the pool again.

Last edited by WhiteSeal; 09-26-2014 at 06:48 AM.
WhiteSeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 06:48 AM   #12
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSeal View Post
@GenoMax: samples were checked on BioAnalyzer to check the length of the fragments (all >700bp) so this should not happen. Also, we have seen this with almost all our 600PE v3 runs on the MiSeq.

@NextGenSeq: MiSeq run 600PEv3 with 566k clusters gave - according to illumina output - ~14M reads, but in read two at cycle 550 already 5M reads have a Qscore <Q30 (not good), and at cycle 600 12M reads have a Qscore <Q30 (really not good). And then this was a 'good' run.
This is really low. Did you spike in PhiX? If so what are those reads like?

If they are good it's your library.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 07:18 AM   #13
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSeal View Post
@GenoMax: I have not had the opportunity to look into the data myself, but customer is complaining that Qscores at final 50 cycles is well below expected.
Should one overly worry about Q-scores, specially for a re-sequencing run (not sure what kind of a run this is)? If a reference genome was available (and you are not trying to call SNP's in that region) the sequence may be still usable (irrespective of the Q-scores). If this was a de novo run then the worry would be justifiable.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 08:14 AM   #14
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextGenSeq View Post
IMHO the v4 chemistry isn't worth the extra money.
40% more in reagent costs gets you roughly twice the data. Generally see >5 billion >=Q30 bases for a 500 cycle run and >10 billion >=Q30 bases for a 600 cycle run.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 08:16 AM   #15
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

On the MiSeq we get maybe 24 million versus 20 million for v3. That's not worth it for an extra $400.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 09:44 AM   #16
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextGenSeq View Post
On the MiSeq we get maybe 24 million versus 20 million for v3. That's not worth it for an extra $400.
The 600 cycle kit uses 38 tiles, whereas the 500 cycle kit uses 28. That should get you 36% more reads from the v3 kit, even if you were getting the same pass filter cluster density.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 11:55 AM   #17
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiguel View Post
The 600 cycle kit uses 38 tiles, whereas the 500 cycle kit uses 28. That should get you 36% more reads from the v3 kit, even if you were getting the same pass filter cluster density.

--
Phillip
Well as shown by the original poster obviously they are not.
NextGenSeq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 12:18 PM   #18
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,276
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NextGenSeq View Post
Well as shown by the original poster obviously they are not.
Eh? The original poster was talking only about the estimated error profile. Not numbers of reads.
Like I said previously, we typically see 2x more data from the 600 cycle kit than the 500 cycle kit.
But, at a minimum, you should be seeing a 36% increase in the number of reads--just from the instrument imaging a larger portion of the flowcell.
If you don't see that, then there is some sort of issue with the libraries, cluster density or machines involved.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 12:32 PM   #19
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSeal View Post
image
I don't think that image is particularly useful. What if all the bases below Q30 were actually Q29, for example? Some sort of box/whisker plot of quality score or expected (or even actual) error rate would be good, but I wouldn't make any decisions about a run based on a %>Q30 plot.
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2014, 04:56 PM   #20
NextGenSeq
Senior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 482
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiguel View Post
Eh? The original poster was talking only about the estimated error profile. Not numbers of reads.
Like I said previously, we typically see 2x more data from the 600 cycle kit than the 500 cycle kit.
But, at a minimum, you should be seeing a 36% increase in the number of reads--just from the instrument imaging a larger portion of the flowcell.
If you don't see that, then there is some sort of issue with the libraries, cluster density or machines involved.

--
Phillip
I guessed you missed the post about 14 million total reads.
NextGenSeq 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 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO