SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help with TruSeq gDNA library prep BTS Illumina/Solexa 45 02-22-2017 10:09 AM
TruSeq DNA 500bp library prep apeterson Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 10-10-2012 07:28 AM
chimeric reads from TruSeq library prep The_Roads General 0 08-17-2012 08:18 AM
TruSeq with AmPure Beads in during Library Prep Malasky53 Illumina/Solexa 1 08-09-2012 07:08 AM
Automation for TruSeq library prep? jlove Sample Prep / Library Generation 10 01-10-2012 08:34 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-04-2012, 09:41 AM   #1
Hilary April Smith
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 22
Default End Repair problem with gDNA library prep (TruSeq)

Hi. We've been trying to prepare whole-genome DNA libraries with the TruSeq DNA library sample prep kit. I've been sharing reagents/kits, and had to split my last library prep between an older kit and a newer one. The old kit (not expired) yielded ~0.1-2.4 nM; the newer kit yielded ≥89 nM per sample. I think the problem was either age or multiple freeze/thaw cycles for the End Repair mix. We're trying to determine if it's ok to just re-amplify the libraries with low yield by a couple extra PCR cycles (we already did 10), or if we should re-make the libraries. Our concern is whether (1) the problem -- End Repair as I suspect or something else -- could somehow bias our results and yield to different results between the libraries with the two kits, and (2) if doing >10 PCR cycles could result in undue bias.

Note we're only using 1/2 reagent volume to save $, and starting with only ~300 ng dsDNA (some fresh, some old) due to limiting material. Bioanalyzer traces show ~500 bp for the size for libraries from either kit -- which I assume(?) means that the adapters ligated and we just have low yield. (We finally fine-tuned the BluePippin preps to work, but now this is causing us to ? about 22 libraries).

Any help is greatly appreciated!!!
Best,
Hilary
Hilary April Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 10:12 AM   #2
ECO
--Site Admin--
 
Location: SF Bay Area, CA, USA

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,358
Default

Why can't you sequence them? Just concerned about the discrepant yield?
ECO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2012, 10:22 AM   #3
Hilary April Smith
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 22
Default

I think that we will need to do a couple more PCR cycles to have enough, as some of our samples are too low (0.1 nM). We're only multiplexing 7 samples per lane, so normalizing everything to the same concentration won't yield enough to load on the flow cell.

Our bigger concern is whether the varying output from the two kits means that there would be some bias to the results. If it is only a difference in yield, then we can just do PCR and fix it. IF there's some likelihood of bias (eg if the low yield means that we'd have poor coverage -- perhaps losing data from single copy regions if the low yield means we only have things in multiple copies that came through) then we'd need to remake them. We're trying to make sure that if we spend the $ to sequence them that we have reasonable faith in the results, since we're using 4 lanes PE and thus the sequencing costs greatly outweigh library construction costs (if one excludes the time...). Granted there's no way to know for sure without sequencing, but as we're still a bit newer to the TruSeq kits, we're grateful for any insight/suggestions.
Hilary April Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 03:54 AM   #4
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Hi Hilary,
0.1 nM is around 60 million amplicons/ul. What is your volume? You could speed vap them.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:40 AM   #5
Hilary April Smith
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 22
Default

We have ~11 uL left (roughly) after Bioanalyzer and quantification runs; I had halved reaction volumes and did an extra elution at the end to ensure I didn't have any Ampure bead carry-over. We're multiplexing 7 samples per lane before sending them out for sequencing (we don't have a HiSeq at ND). We'd thought to send the samples to BGI from another lab's recommendation, and a quote we received lists desired qty as 2.98 nM concentrations in 15 uL, or a total of at least 0.07 pmol -- so we're a little under. Yet if one can obtain 60 million amplicons/uL from 0.1 nM and given I thought current v3 chemistry yields ~120-180 million reads/lane, perhaps what we have is enough?

Do you think these libraries would still be viable, or that the low yield is likely indicative of some greater flaw? It seems ok to me from the Bioanalyzer traces (peak at ~490/500 bp), but I was nervous when I saw the difference in quantity (~2 orders of magnitude) btw the two kits of reagents, having made all libraries at the same time. It clearly is a reagent issue, as some libraries with the same adapter/DNA type (just a different specimen) fell between the two kits, with low yield from the old kit and high from the new.

Thank you very much for your help and thoughts! Given these samples are hard to come by (African anophelines) I'm trying to take extra care.
Best,
Hilary
Hilary April Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:55 AM   #6
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Hi Hilary,
Your concerns are justified. But sometimes you are working with a sample that can't be replaced, so you go with what you have.

BTW, the efficiency of clustering is not 100% on the HiSeq, so even though your tube probably has 600 million amplicons in it, the standard Illumina denaturation protocol leads to most of the sample being thrown away. BGI probably doesn't want to tinker around with clustering a sample below their specs. So I would say remake the library, if you can. If not, yes do some more PCR.

The thing is that frequently when we squeeze a run out of a sample that doesn't want to give a good library, we end up with high percentage of whatever happens to contaminate the TruSeq kit. Also, depends on what the sample is for. If for de novo transcriptome (discovery) stuff, it may still be useful. If it is a replicate, maybe not.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:46 AM   #7
Hilary April Smith
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 22
Default

Thank you very much. I think we will be remaking the libraries; upon further discussion it seems the older kit went through ~6-7 freeze / thaw cycles before we received it, so that probably explains the low yield.
Hilary April Smith 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 08:48 AM.


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