SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > RNA Sequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RNA sequencing, use DNAse treatment? JonB RNA Sequencing 0 04-30-2012 01:17 AM
RNA fragmentation Argonaute Sample Prep / Library Generation 7 02-04-2012 11:37 AM
Ribo-Zero before or after DNase treatment? colin.aibn Sample Prep / Library Generation 7 02-02-2012 09:15 AM
DNase treat RNA before SOLiD Small RNA? DrDTonge Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 06-02-2011 06:46 AM
RNA fragmentation niceday Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 07-15-2010 07:42 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2012, 07:17 AM   #1
pig_raffles
Member
 
Location: Sheffield, UK

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
Default DNase treatment and fragmentation of RNA

Hi all,

I have recently started RNA extraction on different fish tissues with the aim of carrying out RNA-seq using Illumina Hi-seq.

Following a Trizol extraction protocol, I performed DNase treatment using the Ambion Turbo DNA-free kit, followed by RNeasy spin-column purification.

When the samples were run on the Bioanalyzer, RNA concentrations were quite high, yet the traces generally showed high baselines indicating sample RNA degradation (see attached image)

Whilst this may be due to a number of reasons, one of my colleagues suggested that DNase treatment itself could cause odd readings on the bioanalyzer and potentially cause RNA degradation. i was therefore wondering if anyone else had experienced similar problems with DNase treatment and total RNA quality, especially using the Ambion kit, and had any words of advice regarding its use and possible consequences

Many thanks in advance
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Total RNA (08.06.12).jpg (78.5 KB, 311 views)
pig_raffles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2012, 11:07 AM   #2
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

What you probably should do is give it another shot but save an aliquot of your RNA pre-DNAse treatment to run along side your post-DNAse treated RNA. I doubt Ambion would have RNAse issues with their reagents, but who knows?

That said, most likely your RNA was already degraded prior to DNAse treatment. If not, it is also possible that you have contaminating RNAses in your RNA prep that kick in during the DNAse treatment.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2012, 11:23 AM   #3
NormSci
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default Bypass DNase treatment if it is degrading your RNA

I have had similar problems with RNA extractions from gill tissue. Prior to DNase treatment, BioAnalyzer RIN values of my samples were typically > 9, and BioRad Experion RQI values > 8.

However, after DNase I treatment, using either the Invitrogen Amplification Grade DNase I, or the Ambion DNA-Free kit, the RNA was significantly degraded (RIN/RQI < 8, often < 6, many < 4).

Though I was never able to resolve the issue, I realized that the DNase step was not absolutely necessary, but was instead only recommended by the manufacturer (my samples were also destined for RNA-Seq on an Illumina HiSeq2000), and thus could be bypassed. Samples are typically "DNased" to aid in sample concentration normalization. However, DNA contamination within the samples is removed during the mRNA isolation step.

Assuming you want to isolate the mRNA, what you could do is DNase an aliquot of every sample and quantify it. Though the RNA will be degraded, DNA will be removed and thus the remaining concentration will represent the purified RNA. Then all you have to do is compare the difference in concentrations between the "DNased" samples and the "non-Dnased" samples (which you must also quantify). This should give a rough idea as to how much DNA is contaminating each sample, and thus how much extra "non-DNased" sample to use for mRNA library construction.
NormSci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2012, 03:36 AM   #4
betacamp
Junior Member
 
Location: Postdoc R&D, Biocel & Petrobrás Bioscience Institute - USP University - São Paulo - BR

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Dear Norm,
Great explanation!!!
I have the same problems with my RNA sample tissue of my problematic plant....
I need all RNA preparation for the best quality without dnase treatment.... because if I use Dnase in my Rna samples all degrading...
It is a very hard work for us.
I tested many RNA kit plant prococols like Ambion,invitrogen and Qiagen..... but the best shot is home made plant protocol starting with CTAB always ....
with CTAB home made protocol I had a RIN 6 to 8 agilent traces without dnase....
betacamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2012, 04:43 AM   #5
betacamp
Junior Member
 
Location: Postdoc R&D, Biocel & Petrobrás Bioscience Institute - USP University - São Paulo - BR

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
Wink RNA Extraction Kits Never more...

Dear Pig_raffles,

Following...

This is my best RNA Agilent traces with homemade CTAB protocol without RNA pre-DNAse treatment.
I dont use never more RNA Extraction Kits (like Ambion or Invitrogen), because its dont work for my RNA Plant preparation samples...
With this RNA CTAB protocol homemade I get on average between 6 to 8 RNA extractions, only ONE with this best RIN result on Bioanalyser, because if I make a RNA pre-treatment DNASE, my RNA plant is completely degraded. Already many protocols tested by treatment with DNASE and any work for my sample RNA plant.

Best wishes,

Beta.

http://s1244.photobucket.com/albums/...CMYRNA-SEQ.png
betacamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 03:45 AM   #6
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

Listen, you can attempt to convince yourselves that DNAse treatment is not necessary all you want, but that does change the fact that failing to do it can result in DNA sequence contamination of your RNAseq results.

Also, if your RNA is degrading during DNAse treatment, the simple explanation is that your preps still have RNases in them. That is, your RNA prep has been unsuccessful at completely removing them. So, even if you skip the DNAse step, to spare your RNA, all you accomplish is a circumvention of the QC step -- your RNA will likely degrade during a later step.

A "standard paradigm protocol" would have you isolate intact RNA free of contaminating RNases and depleted of most DNA. Then DNase treat to remove the remaining DNA, followed by some purification to remove the DNase and oligonucleotides. (I like Zymo columns for this purpose.)

No one likes to see their RNA degrade during DNase treatment, but better it happens there than at a later step where library QC may not catch it.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 04:35 AM   #7
NormSci
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Naturally, contamination with RNases is the first thing one would suspect. To test this I ran control samples (i.e., samples where RNase free H2O was added in place of the requisite reagents required by the DNase kit) alongside DNase-treated samples.

The results showed that the control samples had almost no degradation (RIN ~ 9.6), while the DNase treated samples were highly degraded (RIN < 6). Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if there were any residual RNases in the sample, post-extraction and pre-DNase treatment, would the control samples not also be degraded?

These results tell me that something in the DNase kit, or something that occurs during the DNase treatment (which could, I'll admit, be environmental), must be the source of degradation, and that the samples likely do not contain a significant amount of residual RNases left over from the extractions.
NormSci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 06:29 AM   #8
betacamp
Junior Member
 
Location: Postdoc R&D, Biocel & Petrobrás Bioscience Institute - USP University - São Paulo - BR

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
Cool

Dear pmiguel,

I'm not trying to convince anyone do NOT use RNA DNASE treatment ...

I'm exposing the discussion of my case and my own experience with my specific type samples plant.

I´m already worked with Biomol to many kinds of samples like fungi, plants, bacteria and protozoa, and I know full well that each type has its typical extraction of RNA!!! An extraction of RNA that fits very well for a sample is not for another.

Is there a sample on top of my RNA trace Agilent to prove it, they are great my extractions and RNA-seq already made them and no problems Assembly of libraries.

Dear pig_raffles

I agree with everything you said and with the tests that you did.

All the best.
betacamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 07:44 AM   #9
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

To reiterate:

(1) Any residual DNA in your RNA prep may be sequenced during RNA seq. So it is unwise to skip the DNAse step.

(2) If your RNA prep is degrading during DNAse treatment, that is a problem with a large number of possible causes. I suggested one previously. But whatever the cause, that issue needs to be dealt with so that DNAse treatment can be undertaken. Just skipping the DNAse treatment is not a legitimate solution in my opinion.

Note that having contaminating DNA sequence in your RNA seq will not necessarily interfere with assembly, so that is not an acceptable test for DNA contamination of your sequence data set.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinions on this subject. But I think I see some wishful thinking therein -- so I am pointing it out.
--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 08:33 AM   #10
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

There is a lot of potential sources of contamination. Maybe its the DNase. Maybe....its the RNeasy kits you use afterwards.....especially if you contaminated the water/buffer you resuspend your RNA in.

I would question any RNA-seq result that did not DNase treat.
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:22 PM   #11
NormSci
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Unless I am missing something, wouldn't the isolation of 3' tail poly-A mRNA (if that is one's goal) filter out any residual DNA contamination? If not, then somebody better tell Illumina to change their TruSeq manual.

I suppose that any DNA sequence that is complimentary to the oligo-dT primer sequence could be included in the poly-A mRNA library. But I expect that these sequences would be relatively rare compared to transcript abundance, and further, that such sequences would most likely be filtered out during pre-processing and QC steps, where rare sequences (i.e., sequencing errors) are removed. Thus, it seems to me that that the effect of putative DNA poly-A hitchhikers on any assessment of differential expression would be negligable.

Lastly, it is my understanding that treatment with DNase does not remove all contaminating DNA, but only reduces it, at best.
NormSci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:38 PM   #12
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

You don't think poly A repeats are common in genomes?
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 05:50 PM   #13
NormSci
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default

My apologies, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

Poly-A repeats matching the oligo-dT primer, that have identical contiguous sequences spanning the entire read length (say, 100 bp), and that occur in the genome at a level that comes close to the abundance of expressed transcripts? No, I think such sequences would be RELATIVELY rare. Rare enough that they are more likely not to be sequenced, and for those that are, rare enough that they would be filtered out as sequencing errors. At most, such sequences would exist as repeats in the dataset only to the extent that they are repeated in the genome, and I would think that these sequences would be significantly less common than expressed transcripts.

Last edited by NormSci; 06-26-2012 at 06:11 PM. Reason: Clarification
NormSci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 06:29 PM   #14
chadn737
Senior Member
 
Location: US

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 392
Default

Consider that after two rounds of polyA selection, there is always a non-Insignificant number of reads from rRNA and tRNA. PolyA selection is imperfect. Primers mis-prime and you do not need 100% match to capture something. Intergenic and intronic regions are rich in A/T repeats. And since these are genomic sequences, they will not show up as sequencing errors, but instead align back to the genome. Some will be intergenic and intronic, but how do you know this is DNA contamination as opposed to alternative splicing and unannotated or noncoding transcripts or even just spurious transcription?

Of course all of this is assuming that 1) you have a reference genome and 2) you use polyA selection. What if you have to do a denovo transcriptome? What if you use a rRNA depletion method rather than polyA selection?

Its your data, but I would not waste my time or money without DNase treating.

Last edited by chadn737; 06-27-2012 at 04:20 AM.
chadn737 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:13 AM   #15
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

The oligo dT step is a selection against DNA. But remember that is "oligo" dT -- you just need enough oligo dA to hybridize to the dT and you are off and running.

You are right that the DNAse treatment will not reduce the amount of DNA to zero -- it is important to use an RNA prep method that also fractionates the RNA away from the DNA. Acid phenol (TRIzol), lithium chloride precipitations, etc. are often used.

Purification schemes of this sort rely on one step depleting contaminants (in this case DNA) then another depleting them again -- hopefully with multiplicative effect.

I don't know, NormSci, you seem to know what you are doing. To tell you the truth, I am not really concerned for your experiment. I am a little concerned about the hapless grad student whose total RNA degrades the first time they do a DNase treatment, then finds your post via Google. They may feel like they now have a good reason to just skip the step that likely is just showing them they have failed to sufficiently purify their RNA.

On the other hand, that hapless grad student may have a ton of DNA contaminating their sample for whatever reason -- in which case the DNAse treatment may only be sufficient to chop it into fragments of a perfect size to be blunted and adapter-ligated. In that case maybe they are better off skipping the DNAse treatment.

Oh, and what do we really know about this DNAse anyway? How sure are we that it does only degrade RNA? How sure are we that RNA never contains deoxynucleotides? Maybe this is common in your particular organism. Face it, we are largely stumbling around in the dark. Advice we give in forums of this sort might help a few people from falling into some particularly large pits. But, as they say, your mileage may vary.


--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:34 AM   #16
betacamp
Junior Member
 
Location: Postdoc R&D, Biocel & Petrobrás Bioscience Institute - USP University - São Paulo - BR

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Dear pmiguel...

I sincerely hope that yours humility is greater!
First, to make it clear (if you're talking about my posts?)...

I'm not a graduate student, I am a postdoc.

Second, the figure of my sample on the link below, with the 7.30 RIN... tell me something more concrete?!
I made an RNA-seq with this sample on Illumina and I got awesome result, IN MY CASE without DNase treatment!

http://s1244.photobucket.com/albums/...CMYRNA-SEQ.png

Unbelievable, I thought this place was for healthy discussion, but I'm not seeing that!

To: NormSci
I think we should create a post: Suggesting changes in protocols for Illumina Hi-seq!!!!!!!! (Who's more?)!!!

Or... Make a RIN 10!!!!

Last edited by betacamp; 06-27-2012 at 04:45 AM.
betacamp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 04:56 AM   #17
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

Hey betacamp,
Don't be so sensitive! I was not referring to anyone in this thread with the "hapless grad student" comment.
But I should mention that DNAse treatment is unlikely to increase your RIN score. That is not the point. It is degrading residual DNA that will contaminate all RNA preps. But because of the incubation step, any RNAses remaining in your RNA prep would tend to degrade your RNA. So my advice is to modify your RNA prep method until you can do a DNAse treatment without degrading your RNA.
If you can't get your RNA to stop degrading at this step -- I guess you are right, you must skip the DNAse treatment. But it may cause problems for you later.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 06:59 AM   #18
NormSci
Member
 
Location: Canada

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 11
Default

I completely agree that that DNAse treatment of RNA should be standard protocol prior to RNA-seq, and I hope I'm not giving the impression that it is not. It certainly would not be wise to skip this step as a matter of convenience.

However, for those same hapless graduate students who have tried everything under the sun, yet their RNA continues to degrade after DNAse treatment, I want to point out that all is not necessarily lost, and that depending on their experimental objectives (i.e., sequencing targets), their RNA-seq experiment may be salvageable.
NormSci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 10:29 AM   #19
Papaveraceae
Junior Member
 
Location: Kansas

Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5
Default Zymo Columns

Phillip,

I'm quite new to RNA work but I have managed to get some pretty good results on my pre-DNased samples, see image. I recently read your comment about using the Zymo spin columns to clean up samples after DNase treatment. I was wondering if any effect on the total RNA profile has been reported after using these columns. I've read that many people tend to avoid the RNA extraction kits due to the deleterious effects on the total RNA profile caused by the columns used in these kits. Also, wouldn’t you need to run your samples on the bioanalyzer or nanodrop prior to the DNase treatment, inorder to determine how many units of DNAse to use on your sample.
Attached Images
File Type: png RNA samples.PNG (50.8 KB, 146 views)
Papaveraceae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:43 AM   #20
pmiguel
Senior Member
 
Location: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Papaveraceae View Post
Phillip,

I'm quite new to RNA work but I have managed to get some pretty good results on my pre-DNased samples, see image. I recently read your comment about using the Zymo spin columns to clean up samples after DNase treatment. I was wondering if any effect on the total RNA profile has been reported after using these columns. I've read that many people tend to avoid the RNA extraction kits due to the deleterious effects on the total RNA profile caused by the columns used in these kits. Also, wouldn’t you need to run your samples on the bioanalyzer or nanodrop prior to the DNase treatment, inorder to determine how many units of DNAse to use on your sample.
I think if your RNA is degrading during the DNAse digestion, then it was not purified sufficiently in the first place. You probably got off easy. If it degraded during DNAse treatment at least you know you need to modify your prep. Otherwise you submit it for sequencing and it degrades during library creation. Plus you end up sequencing DNA as well as RNA.

--
Phillip
pmiguel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
library prep, rna fragmentation, sample prep

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 07:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO