SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poor Nextera XT index read quality on Miseq ustar Illumina/Solexa 2 07-22-2014 07:12 AM
Low quality in the middle of the read? MG1655 Illumina/Solexa 0 08-12-2012 12:22 PM
Alternating High/Low intensity of sample, but not PhiX BBthekid007 Illumina/Solexa 2 02-22-2012 06:36 AM
Periodical illumina read length distribution after trimming of low-quality bases luxmare General 4 12-20-2010 03:18 PM
MAQ: Obtain quality & read depth info non-variant (referent) sites erichpowell Bioinformatics 1 12-18-2009 12:35 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-01-2016, 03:27 PM   #1
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default Low intensity & quality for Index Read 2

We've encountered a problem with the last couple of paired end, dual indexed runs on our HiSeq 2500 and I wanted to check if any others have had similar experience. The problem is that the signal intensity and thus the read quality of Index read #2 is very poor. All other aspects of the run, meaning Read 1, Index 1 and Read 2 work perfectly fine, good signal and quality. The poor quality of Index #2 results in problems with demultiplexing.

We have run a couple of single read, dual index runs and in those cases index read 2 is fine, of course the manner in which index read 2 is done on single read vs paired end read flow cells differs.

We contacted Illumina and they have no explanation. Nothing stood out in the log files to suggest a cause. The engineer did some back flushing and checking of the fluidics but we have not tested it since that was done.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? Any ideas would be appreciated as well.
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2016, 11:14 AM   #2
LaoR
Junior Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3
Default

Can you look the %base? See if you can read off the base pairs from it.

I've encountered something similar for 3 rapid runs.If you can read off the base pairs for your second index, search to see if it's from part of the I5 adapter sequence. If so, it may be a "transient" fluidics problem. The machine probably didn't deliver reagents to strip off the previous index sequencing primer.
LaoR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 03:42 AM   #3
HeinKey
Member
 
Location: Wageningen, Netherlands

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 21
Default

We have the same issue. Low quality index2 in paired-end runs, and normal quality index2 in Single read runs.
Illumina finally recognized the problem, (we did some validation runs for them).
We now have a work around where we receive a different dual index primer and run a custom receipe on our HiSeq2500 (V4). This way the index 2 primer is not the grafted oligo, but the separately delivered index 2 primer which probably is covering the dark cycle nucleotides. We did not get the details of this primer sequence....
We will test this in the upcoming weeks.
HeinKey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 04:19 AM   #4
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeinKey View Post
We have the same issue. Low quality index2 in paired-end runs, and normal quality index2 in Single read runs.
Illumina finally recognized the problem, (we did some validation runs for them).
We now have a work around where we receive a different dual index primer and run a custom receipe on our HiSeq2500 (V4). This way the index 2 primer is not the grafted oligo, but the separately delivered index 2 primer which probably is covering the dark cycle nucleotides. We did not get the details of this primer sequence....
We will test this in the upcoming weeks.
HeinKey,

Yes, it sounds exactly the same as the issues we have had. At least now I know it isn't something totally unique to our instrument. The problem was so specific to paired end, dual indexed runs that I assumed it had to have something to do with priming index 2 from the grafted oligo.

We are starting another PE, dual index run today and we'll see how it goes. I'll report back and please do keep me posted on your results (you can PM me if your wish).

Thanks, Kevin
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2016, 09:14 AM   #5
LaoR
Junior Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3
Default

If that's the case, wouldn't it be reproducible by using reagents from the same lot to run the libraries again using similar settings?

In the beginning, Illumina wants to blame on the library prep. We used same lot numbers to rerun the "failed index 2" run on the instrument. Rerun was totally fine.
LaoR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2016, 02:16 AM   #6
Ryjinko
Junior Member
 
Location: Shanghai

Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1
Default

Our sequencer is NextSeq 500, and we encountered the same problem in paired-end dual-index sequencing of library constructed from PCR amplicon.

And now we have solved this question. During the library construction procedure, we use cutomized P5 and P5 adapters synthesized by commercial provider, by sequence analyis, we found that the adapter missed one "A" base when we designed, while this "A" base was added by dA-tailing in the standard Illumina library construction peocudure.

This is just the case for our NextSeq 500 sequencer using customized P5 and P7 adapters during paired-end dual-index sequencing.

Hope that will be of little help.
Ryjinko 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 01:38 AM.


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