SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's the effect of large difference of library size by RNA-seq ? yeyeming RNA Sequencing 8 03-15-2013 05:33 AM
RNA-Seq: High-Throughput Illumina Strand-Specific RNA Sequencing Library Preparation. Newsbot! Literature Watch 1 01-21-2013 11:48 PM
DNA size range for Covaris sonicator? glassfish Illumina/Solexa 5 07-23-2011 07:51 AM
Problems with Invitrogen Size Select E-gels for Illumina RNA-Seq Library Sample Prep? Jerry Glenn Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 04-18-2011 07:14 AM
RNA-Seq: Method for improved Illumina sequencing library preparation using NuGEN Ovat Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 04-14-2011 02:50 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-29-2011, 11:28 AM   #1
JHess
Junior Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1
Default Broad size range for Illumina RNA-seq library - secondary subsampling biases?

Hello!

we are currently having mRNA libraries of non-model organisms prepped and have been running into some issues resulting in very broad fragment size distributions.

Neither of the two library construction protocols we have tried (standard Illumina protocols and covaris shearing, afaik) show distinct peaks; The first one produced a range in fragment sizes from about 200 to 700 bps at nearly equal concentrations accross the range. The second resulted in a distribution that is slightly skewed towards larger fragment sizes but is still showing considerable concentrations of shorter fragments.

Seeing that we will use those libraries for de-novo transcriptome assembly, I feel that it would be a bad idea to run the libraries as they are due to the compromises in accuracy of insert size information.

One of the other options we have would be subsampling from these libraries by performing an additional size selection step. Theoretically this should not bias the libraries if shearing was random. I was wondering whether any of you had an opinion on this? What is it that could be causing this broad distribution and can I realistically expect shearing to be (mostly) random?

Also, has anyone tried assembling a library that had similarly broad distributions?

Thanks very much for your help!
Jacky
JHess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2011, 03:37 AM   #2
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Hard to say without see an image. This could be the normal "bird-nesting/bubble product/daisy chain" hybe phenomenon one will often see with TruSeq libraries after the enrichment amplification. You could try denaturing aliquots from the library (95 oC for 2 minutes followed by "snap" cool on ice) prior to running them on a pico RNA chip. That should remove the inter-molecule hybridization that can produce the multiple/broad peaks and give you an additional a better idea of the true size range of your amplicons.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 04:56 AM   #3
sehrrot
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 58
Default

I agree with pmiguel. that's very common in Truseq libraries. I don't know the reason but I've tried denaturing and it helps a bit. Also, I've considered if I put too much input for bioA but it's also observed in gel. So, last time I ran the gel and ut both 'larger peak' and 'normal peak', then sequenced. Both are basically same. I think it just conformationally bound to each other than increasing their size. I would say two peaks issue is fine but you would be bothered in measuring the mean size of your library, which is needed for your library QC and cluster density.

Apart from this issue, I wouldn't say that this issue is bird-nesting, I know this might be very arbitrary, but bird-nesting describes the situation that un-proper ligation makes two population within one sample - one is ligated (so shown in larger size) and the other is un- or partially-ligated (so shown in the size same as sheared DNA).
sehrrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 07:38 AM   #4
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,317
Default

Really? I just got the term from the Epicentre blog post:

http://epicentral.blogspot.com/2010/...irds-bird.html

Denaturation does not help for us, unless the sample is subsequently run on a denaturing (RNA) chip. If you run it on a DNA chip, we usually see more of the larger peak(s).

Here is a potentially useful overview of the topic:

http://seqanswers.com/forums/showpos...28&postcount=2

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
de-novo transcriptome, illumina hiseq, library size

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 04:38 PM.


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