SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Demultiplexing MiSeq Runs with Miseq Reporter cinimod Illumina/Solexa 2 12-17-2014 10:58 PM
Amplicon PCR Problems with Illumina MiSeq Sample Prep locon833 Sample Prep / Library Generation 4 08-28-2014 01:52 PM
Library prep protocol for 16s rRNA sequencing by MiSeq Genetics Kitty Sample Prep / Library Generation 2 11-21-2013 06:56 AM
Sample/library prep of DNA and RNA in a metagenomic sample chrisaw01 Metagenomics 1 05-05-2011 02:59 PM
Problems with Modified Paired End Sample Prep Protocol vas72985 Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 07-14-2010 08:22 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-06-2019, 04:13 PM   #1
samd
Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 10
Default discrepancy in miseq runs due to sample prep protocol?

Hi all,

I have had an issue where my first ever Miseq run was great quality: 100k reads per sample with a nice distribution and then after switching sequencing facilities I get lower outputs and also a highly variable spread where many samples are under 10k reads per sample and some are as high as 300k. See original post here to learn more about the parameters if intersted: here

The libraries are all similar 16S libraries but the three minor things that did change were:
1. I added a heating step to the extractions using the PowerSoil Extractions Kits (65C for 10 mins and then 95C for 10 mins before the Power bead step)
2. I switched from AMPure Bead cleans after both PCR 1 and PCR 2 to only 1 bead clean with OMEGA Beads after the 2nd PCR.
3. I switched from 35 cycles in the 1st PCR to 28 cycles.

Nothing seemed to change in the "quality" of the DNA as I got similar gel results and quantifications. However I did get different QC results with the first good run having a nice skinny peak, and the bad runs having more of a lumpy hill around the fragment size (attached a picture below).

Any ideas if I should be worried about my lab protocol? Or should I rethink which sequencing facility I use (The new place is very very cheap which is why we switched)?

Thanks for the feedback!
Sam
Attached Images
File Type: png Run comparison.png (71.8 KB, 12 views)
samd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2019, 04:51 AM   #2
HESmith
Senior Member
 
Location: Bethesda MD

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 504
Default

The simplest way to isolate the problem is to have new facility sequence the old (high quality) sample - if the data are good, it's not the facility. Alternatively, prepare your next sample with both the original and modified protocols (with indices to discriminate the two) and compare the sequence data.
HESmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2019, 07:33 AM   #3
kmcarr
Senior Member
 
Location: USA, Midwest

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samd View Post
...
Nothing seemed to change in the "quality" of the DNA as I got similar gel results and quantifications. However I did get different QC results with the first good run having a nice skinny peak, and the bad runs having more of a lumpy hill around the fragment size (attached a picture below).
...
Don't over interpret the differences between these two traces since they were obviously performed using different instruments. The one on the left appears to be an Advanced Analytical Fragment Analyzer and on the right an Agilent TapeStation. Due to differences in the electrophoretic matrix and run conditions the same library may appear to migrate differently on different instruments. Also note that the X axis (size scale) is much more compressed on the Fragment Analyzer relative to the TapeStation so naturally peaks will appear more compressed.
kmcarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
16s, lab protocol, microbiome, miseq, output

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 03:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO