SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > 454 Pyrosequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the default settings in bwa? genomicist Bioinformatics 0 02-06-2012 01:52 AM
[Mosaik] - parameter settings Cirno Bioinformatics 0 11-05-2011 03:57 PM
GATK indel settings help please inou13 Bioinformatics 2 10-25-2011 08:09 AM
emPCR on thermal cycler jbertsche 454 Pyrosequencing 2 07-07-2011 07:52 AM
soapaligner - settings -M/-v tilsith Bioinformatics 0 01-04-2011 06:18 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2011, 07:15 PM   #1
suefo
Member
 
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 36
Default emPCR thermal cycler settings

We are experiencing high enrichment with our emPCR as well as a high %Short when we achieve an enrichment that allows us to sequence (GS Junior). We have examined our PCR plates, we have used different thermal cyclers and we have tried different tissuelysers / turraxes (looking at emulsion formation) and nothing seems to provide any clues. The only parameter we haven't really played with are the temperatures, times and number of cycles the thermal cyclers of the program.

We are using the temps, times and cycles as outlined in the Roche protocol for em PCR (LVs, MVs, SVs and Junior kits). We are looking at 16S Amplicons. Has anyone else looked at this and use different temps, times and cycles?
suefo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 04:09 PM   #2
RCJK
Senior Member
 
Location: Australia

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Hi suefo, you should only need to adjust the emPCR parameters if you are working with short or long amplicons. Have a look at their amplicon guidelines as well as technical bulletin 2011-001 (geared towards Lib-A amplicons though). I had a project in which the amplicons were ~180bp-300bp and results improved a lot when we used the short emPCR recipes and cycling parameters compared to the "normal" conditions and recipes.
RCJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 04:51 PM   #3
suefo
Member
 
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 36
Default

RCJK... thanks. I will check out the technical bulletin. We are looking at amplicons in the 550-600 bp range and we are using the Lib-L kits.
suefo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2011, 08:07 PM   #4
RCJK
Senior Member
 
Location: Australia

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 155
Default

Also, how high of a %short are you seeing? I do tend to see many more reads filtered out for amplicon samples than shotgun samples. Are the amplicons made with fusion primers or ligated adaptors? It may be worth doing a 2nd round of small fragment removal with the Ampure XP beads. If enrichment recoveries are high, reduce the cpb input.
I've sequenced Lib-L amplicons of ~550bp fine using the normal emPCR conditions, though that is approaching their suggested cut off for using the long emPCR conditions. I have been told though that they have not been tested for Lib-L amplicons. Maybe you could follow the Lib-L emPCR conditions of the FLX+ protocols which should be for longer fragments (but maybe yours are not long enough).
Lastly, if the run yields are low, depending on your application you can modify the filtering parameters to trim the amplicon reads instead of rejecting them. This should also be addressed in the updated amplicon guidelines.
Hope this helps!
RCJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 03:48 AM   #5
suefo
Member
 
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 36
Default

Thanks again RCJK.
Our %Short is around 60% (%Dot+Mix is at 15%).
We do perform an initial AMPure, run the products on the Agilent, pool DNA, re-purify a second time using AMPure and then run a final high-sensitivity Agilent test. Our samples appear to be extremely clean.
We have lowered our cpb down 0.05 and our %enrichment is between 13-18%. This is of course using the Junior and the Junior kits.
We also perform a second run of analysis loosening the filtering parameters which really only impacts the %short reducing it 4-8% from the original Amplicon analysis.
I believe we are using ligated adaptors - but I will double check on that.

Roche has wanted us to try their FLX+ kits. Perhaps I should suggest they send us a few test samples to see if that helps.

I'm new to this technology. My understanding is that once the sequencing is completed they run it through another analysis package that trims the bases down even further and that there may not be too much concern about the %short. We are currently looking at sequencing data obtained off our Junior with previous data generated off the FLX to see if this is the case.
suefo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2011, 03:54 AM   #6
suefo
Member
 
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 36
Default

Ooops... I stand corrected on our length. I just re-checked the agilent data and it appears the DNA being submitted for testing is 650 bp (that's including the PCR adaptors, barcodes and keys).
suefo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 07:21 AM   #7
flxlex
Moderator
 
Location: Oslo, Norway

Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suefo View Post
Roche has wanted us to try their FLX+ kits. Perhaps I should suggest they send us a few test samples to see if that helps.
Are you sure? AFAIK, FLX+ is not available for either GS Junior, or amplicon runs?
flxlex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 01:06 AM   #8
g861@hotmail.com
Junior Member
 
Location: Taiwan

Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 6
Default

60% reads is very higher. The Roche protocol shows more than 20% is failed.
Do you try to change primer volume? or dilute lower concentration of DNA library?
g861@hotmail.com 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 08:12 AM.


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