SEQanswers

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



Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2016, 05:23 AM   #1
HelenaSC
Member
 
Location: Spain

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17
Default QIAseq targeted DNA Panel Question

Hi alla!
Anyone has been working with QIAseq targeted DNA Panel??

It is our first trial and I'm not very glad with the libraries profiles on Bioanalyzer... We have performed a first experiment with two fresh frozen samples (tubes 1 and 2, input 50 ng DNA) and their FFPE partners (at 2 different Input amount; 100 ng and 250 ng, tubes 3, 4, 5 i 6).

What do you think of the library profile? It seems that there are some large fragments in our libraries...any idea?For the fresh frozen it could be an issue related to the PCR...but in the FFPE?? (It doesn't seem to be beads, in my opinion).

Here are the profiles. Thanks a lot in advance!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Imagen4.jpg (96.5 KB, 69 views)
HelenaSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2017, 08:17 AM   #2
jvdmeule
Junior Member
 
Location: Ghent

Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1
Default

Hi HelenaSC,

We have just performed a first trial using the QIAseq targeted DNA panel (actionable tumor panel). I also see that we have large fragments in our libraries.
Have you find why these large fragments were present? And have you found a solution?

Many thanks!
Joni
jvdmeule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2017, 05:37 AM   #3
HelenaSC
Member
 
Location: Spain

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17
Default

Hi Joni,

Yes, the larger fragments are supposed to be overamplification. I made a mistake using the recommendation from the tables, i choosed the wrong conditions regarding the number of cycles in relation to tje number of primers from our panel... Anyway, I repeated the protocol with the correct conditions and, altough some of the samples resulted in much better libraries profile, others just remained the same...

We tried to Run these samples together on a Run and we are experiencing some problems, it seems that the MiSeq was able to detect the clusters (1400) but it wasn't able to give us any more results, and none of the clusters has good passing filter QC...strange... Here is an image from the BySpace, maybe it is more easy to understand...Did you performed a Run?

Imagen1.jpg

Imagen2.jpg
HelenaSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2017, 06:43 AM   #4
Noemie
Junior Member
 
Location: Marseille

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Default

Hi Helena,

We also try to run on Miseq with 8 fresh frozen samples ( input 80 ng DNA) and the MiSeq was able to detect the clusters (1086) and none of the clusters has good passing filter QC!!
Have you found a solution?

Many thanks!
Noemie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2017, 06:53 AM   #5
HelenaSC
Member
 
Location: Spain

Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17
Default

Hi!

No news yet...still waiting for QIAgen ansewer to give us some advice...
Did you ckeck the library profile and quantify you samples?

Thanks!
HelenaSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2017, 07:40 AM   #6
Noemie
Junior Member
 
Location: Marseille

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Default

We check the profile and quantify but on bioanalyser DNA 1000 and it was ok.
If we look Data by cycle it's seem to be overclusterised just like you with the same intensity
Noemie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 12:12 AM   #7
anineo
Junior Member
 
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
Default

Hi,
have you gotten any answers from Qiagen? Or solved the problem?
We have constructed libraries from FFPE DNA and experience the same problems, lots of fragments around 1000 bp.

(The libraries were diluted 1:5, and nothing was loaded in the last one)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg FFPE bioanalyzer.jpg (96.4 KB, 31 views)
anineo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2017, 06:17 PM   #8
FDKseq
Junior Member
 
Location: maryland

Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 1
Default

Hi HelenaSC,

The "larger" fragments in your library was over amplified. The intended library was the peak at the left around 350bp. The over amplified libraries should be the same size as the intended library. They appear as "larger" due to secondary structure since they are not perfectly annealed double strand or just single stranded. Reduce Universal PCR cycle numbers 2-4 should improve over amplification. You will see the increase on intended library peak while decrease on over amplification.

However, over amplification of QIAseq DNA panel won't affect sequencing result, we are doing sequencing on these kind of libraries all time. But, library quantification needs to be accurate and qPCR is preferred when there is over amplification. Sometimes we see library concentration is 2-4 times higher with qPCR quantification than bioanalzyer when there is over amplification.
FDKseq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 07:51 AM   #9
pirega
Junior Member
 
Location: spain

Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2
Default

Hi,
We just started to use this kit, at first we had overamplification and some problems during the sequencing in a NextSeq.
Now we are having some issues in the analysis. Is it usual to obtain duplication rates higher than 20%?
pirega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2018, 10:49 PM   #10
anineo
Junior Member
 
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
Default

Hi,
we also had a lot of duplication. We sequenced at 2500x and ended up with a unique depth at around 200x. In our case it may be attributed to low complexity in the sample, as we started with 20 ng cfDNA and possibly even less. However we also eperienced duplication in the tumor DNA samples, which should have been more complex.

How much DNA did you make the libraries from?
anineo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2018, 12:08 AM   #11
pirega
Junior Member
 
Location: spain

Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 2
Default

Hi anineo,
We fixed the problem of overamplification, our library profile is ok. We do not have any experience with cfDNA yet, we are using 125ng of FFPE DNA, is this duplication rate usual?
Thanks
pirega is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2018, 01:22 AM   #12
anineo
Junior Member
 
Location: Trondheim, Norway

Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 4
Default

Great, how did you fix it? Fewer PCR cycles?

We observed a high duplication rate with FFPE also. Whether it is normal I do not know, but it seems that most studies that use UMIs experience a reduction - which probably just underscores how important it is to include this.

Are you planning to use it on cfDNA, and which kit did you use (which cancer)?
anineo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
library, panel, profile, qiagen, qiaseq

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 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO