SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nextera vs Illumina Library Prep maggie Illumina/Solexa 6 03-01-2012 07:01 PM
Nextera kits HMorrison 454 Pyrosequencing 3 11-01-2011 01:00 PM
Nextera and multiplexing >12 samples? bcanton Illumina/Solexa 7 08-16-2011 11:42 AM
Nextera vs Illumina Library Prep maggie Illumina/Solexa 2 12-30-2010 10:58 AM
nextera niceday Sample Prep / Library Generation 5 09-10-2010 11:31 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-23-2010, 10:32 PM   #1
John.Sawyer
Junior Member
 
Location: California

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6
Default Problems with Nextera

As a core we've performed several tests with epicentre's Nextera DNA Sample Prep and compared to our current Illumina preps. We are noticing very rigid coverage lines and significant bias in our reads with Nextera. I was looking forward to the short prep but the bias is not acceptable. I'm guessing it's the enzymatic cutting that's causing this. Enzymes have some design behind them that physical fragmentation doesn't have. Just wanted to put this out there for people not aware of the bias. Comments from other people's experience would be great.
John.Sawyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2010, 09:23 AM   #2
epibio
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Madison, WI

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 89
Default

The data we have seen indicate Nextera libraries are comparable to those made using other mechanical/enzymatic fragmentation systems. This includes full-coverage libraries from human, bacteria, Drosophila, soy, viruses, PCR amplicons, cDNA, and a variety of plasmid DNAs. Some of our collaborators have submitted a manuscript directly comparing Nextera libraries to those made by mechanical and enzymatic fragmentation methods, wherein they characterized insertion bias, library complexity, genome coverage distribution, GC bias, and other library metrics. These data will also be presented at the CHI XGen Congress in March 2011.

In general, all systems have bias resulting from many contributing factors. For example, standard mechanical fragmentation library preps have bias resulting from the ligation step. Downstream emPCR or bPCR steps contribute to GC coverage bias as well.

Can you provide any specific information regarding the bias you are observing? This would be very helpful in troubleshooting.
epibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2011, 08:19 AM   #3
Boonie
Junior Member
 
Location: Memphis

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6
Default Nextera bias

If the DNA template is limited in quantity, could the bias in the Nextera output in some libraries be due to PCR amplification, even with only the recommended 9 cycles of amplification?

Last edited by Boonie; 04-08-2011 at 08:21 AM.
Boonie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2011, 07:33 AM   #4
epibio
Registered Vendor
 
Location: Madison, WI

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 89
Default

Yes, PCR can be a significant contributor to bias (in all methods of library prep). See Adey et al. doi:10.1186/gb-2010-11-12-r119
epibio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bias, library prep, nextera

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 12:28 PM.


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