SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > RNA Sequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DGE using stranded and unstranded Illumina libraries Sentinel156 RNA Sequencing 1 03-22-2016 08:43 AM
Optimal coverage for RNA-seq analysis of DGE in bacteria seb330 RNA Sequencing 3 11-14-2012 05:42 PM
RNA seq and DGE using edgeR greggime RNA Sequencing 14 07-12-2012 02:01 AM
Multiple DGE libraries comparison. (EdgeR baySeq DESeq) Roman Bruno Bioinformatics 52 11-29-2011 06:39 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-10-2017, 06:00 PM   #1
JDSwenson
Junior Member
 
Location: Bay Area, CA

Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 8
Default RNA-Seq libraries ok for DGE analysis?

Hello all,

I have spent the last several months constructing 48 libraries for RNA sequencing from developing stingray tissue, which I am hoping to sequence on a HiSeq 4000 with 100 bp PE reads.

I have been as consistent as possible throughout my library preps, but I still ended up with a range of fragment sizes after size selection (median size range from 294-485). Further, each library has a fairly broad size distribution. I've attached BioAnalyzer traces for ~ 40 of the samples.

Will these libraries be comparable enough to detect differential gene expression among them? Alternatively, are there bioinformatics tools available that can account for batch effects during processing? Fragmentation is supposed to be random, and the fragment size differences occur across treatments i.e. each treatment has replicates with both shorter and longer fragments.

Thank-you in advance for any feedback!

- John
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Final_BioAnalyzer_cDNA_Libraries_ALL.pdf (4.43 MB, 33 views)
JDSwenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2017, 12:35 PM   #2
fanli
Senior Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 190
Default

I don't see anything in the traces that would make me overly alarmed. Most DGE software packages (edgeR, DESeq2, etc.) allow you to specify batch variables.
fanli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2017, 03:11 PM   #3
luc
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 278
Default

Provided one is starting with all high quality RNA-samples, RNA-seq libraries can (and should) look indistinguishable on Bioanalyzer traces. With most kits the libraries will look similar to your sample 7A. Especially if poly-A enrichment would have been used (varying degrees of 3' biases?), we would not suggest to use these libraries -- clearly varying conditions were at work during library prep. I have no DGE data from technical replicates to back up this recommendation, though.
luc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2017, 01:51 AM   #4
huguesparri
Member
 
Location: Montpellier (France)

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 79
Default

I advise you to build all the libraries you're going to compare at the same time to reduce technical biases.
Are you using a kit or a home made protocole?
huguesparri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2017, 03:01 PM   #5
JDSwenson
Junior Member
 
Location: Bay Area, CA

Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 8
Default

Many thanks for the replies and sorry it took me awhile to respond!

After consulting with a bioinformatician and the sequencing core director, we decided to sequence the samples in one lane. The tissue from which these samples came is rather rare, so even a preliminary estimate of gene expression will be valuable. If I could go back, I would have processed the samples in larger batches and used new, rather than nearly expired, AmPure beads, but there's nothing to be done at this point.

Thanks again for the feedback; fingers crossed there are some interesting discoveries to be made in these data!
JDSwenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 06:09 AM   #6
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
Default

Just watch out for barcode switching / Index swaps / cross contamination. You're going to run into it quite a bit with running 40 [presumably dual-indexed] samples on one lane.
gringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 09:30 AM   #7
JDSwenson
Junior Member
 
Location: Bay Area, CA

Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gringer View Post
Just watch out for barcode switching / Index swaps / cross contamination. You're going to run into it quite a bit with running 40 [presumably dual-indexed] samples on one lane.
AAHHH!! I KNOW! I just read the paper yesterday after I replied to this thread. The run finished 2 weeks ago, so there's no going back. So far, I can't think of a way to mitigate the issue. It would seem, then, that my data are likely compromised ... sigh ... It will be interesting to see how Illumina responds as the word spreads.
JDSwenson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2017, 11:42 AM   #8
gringer
David Eccles (gringer)
 
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 750
Default

I suspect that this problem is not restricted to Illumina sequencing, and not restricted to index confusion. My suspicion is that sequences are ligating during adapter ligation steps, despite the presence of elements like A overhangs that should stop that happening.
gringer 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 11:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO