SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > General



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HiSeq and MiSeq for sale dsb1150 General 0 09-25-2014 11:08 AM
HiSeq or MiSeq available for sale dsb1150 Illumina/Solexa 0 05-12-2014 01:29 PM
HiSeq or MiSeq available for sale dsb1150 Core Facilities 0 05-12-2014 01:27 PM
MiSeq and HiSeq sale bluefin General 0 08-21-2013 12:03 PM
TCGA Level 3 RNASeq data duplicate rows for a gene yww RNA Sequencing 1 04-06-2013 07:53 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2014, 06:28 AM   #1
yub
Junior Member
 
Location: Maryland

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5
Default duplicate level increase from MiSeq to HiSeq

Hi, I did bisulfite seq on the same library, first using MiSeq to check quality, and then using Hiseq to get more reads.

But the duplication level was 50% from MiSeq, and 95% from HiSeq, even though the exact same library was used.

Was this increase in duplicate caused by natural duplication, or too much sequencing coverage? Are there any other explanations? Thank you very much!
yub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2014, 09:22 AM   #2
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,707
Default

The most obvious answer would be that HiSeq produces more sequence, therefore the duplication rate must increase for the same library. How many reads were produced in each run?
Brian Bushnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2014, 10:01 AM   #3
yub
Junior Member
 
Location: Maryland

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5
Default

Thank you for answering my question. MiSeq generated ~2 mil reads, HiSeq ~100 mil. So does this mean that much less reads are needed, since the majority of them are going to be duplicates and thus removed?

Thank you!
yub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2014, 10:27 AM   #4
Brian Bushnell
Super Moderator
 
Location: Walnut Creek, CA

Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,707
Default

The more reads you generate, the more duplicates; but, you may also recover some low-abundance reads. Still, that library has very low complexity. I don't know anything about bisulfite's effects on library complexity, but the complexity generally depends on the genome size, amount of starting material, amount of amplification, and whether reads are paired or single-ended.

Depending on your experiment, your results don't necessarily mean you didn't sequence enough - they might mean that your library was just garbage in the first place, possibly due to overamplification or too little starting DNA. In which case, you need to revise your protocol and start over. So, what was your experiment, what was the genome, how much amplification was there, were the reads SE or PE, and how exactly did you quantify duplication?
Brian Bushnell 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 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO