SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Sequencing Technologies/Companies > Illumina/Solexa



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Batch bias while merging TrueSeq PCR-free and Nano data hudja Illumina/Solexa 0 09-30-2016 12:34 PM
sequencing paired-end and mate-pair libraries in a single lane? Vinn Illumina/Solexa 5 04-13-2016 12:47 AM
TrueSeq PCR free POOR LIGATION efficiencies Degraz Illumina/Solexa 3 04-08-2015 05:03 AM
Pooling of Nextera and NexteraXT libraries exo Sample Prep / Library Generation 9 02-21-2014 03:46 AM
PCR-Free Libraries & Bioinformatic PCR Duplicate detection? aeonsim Bioinformatics 3 10-23-2013 01:36 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-16-2017, 06:11 AM   #1
sinnafoch
Junior Member
 
Location: Austria

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9
Default Pooling and sequencing NexteraXT and TrueSeq PCR free libraries on a single lane

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding the pooling of NexteraXT and TrueSeq PCR free libraries onto a single Illumina HighSeq lane. I am sharing a lane with a colleague and we have different needs: I have enough DNA so I would like to use PCR free libraries. My colleague on the other hand has very little DNA and wants to use NexteraXT preps. Each of use would like to use 1/2 of a lane for sequencing.

The person at our sequencing facility told us that pooling PCRed and PCR-free libraries could be problematic because it is hard to balance molarities in such a way that the different library types each occupy 1/2 of a lane.

Now we are wondering about the possible reasons behind this? Does anyone have an idea why this could happen. I have never seen this mentioned in a paper.

To which extent is this really a problem? When aiming for a 50:50 lane split how far off could the output be? 60:40? 80:20?

thank you all for your help!
sinnafoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 06:42 AM   #2
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,795
Default

What are the expected insert sizes in both cases? Keep in mind that in general short insert libraries will preferentially cluster (you may need to adjust loading conc going in, taking that into account) and may compete out larger fragments.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 07:17 AM   #3
Qibao
Junior Member
 
Location: ohio

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1
Default

It also depends on what instrument you are using. We tried it on HiSeq4000 before and it worked well. It uses 2-3nM for PCR based libraries and 1-2nM for PCR free libraries. We mixed the samples to 3:2 ratio and it gave us expected sequencing percentage.
Qibao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2017, 06:20 AM   #4
Genetic Librarian
Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28
Default

well, mixing two libraries is a tricky task in general, no matter if PCR-free or not.
It works well with libraries of the same fragment size. If the two libraries are of different sizes, there is a certain amount of educated guessing to counteract the bias for smaller fragments.

For your particular issue, you need to make sure that both libraries are quantified using the same methods. For PCR free libraries, qPCR is needed, whereas for Nextera XT you are fine with just Qubit. So in this case, both should be measured with qPCR.
Genetic Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2017, 12:05 AM   #5
sinnafoch
Junior Member
 
Location: Austria

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9
Default

Thanks everyone! That the libraries probably need to be quantified with the same method is a good hint, we have also thought that this may minimize problems in our case.
We have not thought about insert size however, I don't really understand why this may be an issue.

Anyways, thank you again for your replies, gives me something to think about
sinnafoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2017, 12:10 AM   #6
Genetic Librarian
Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28
Default

Insert size is a problem because bias works in favour of smaller fragments.
So if you mix a 300 bp library and a 500 bp library 50/50, you will end up with a ~70/30 read distribution.
One reason is the normal PCR bias during bridge amplification.
Another reason is the ExAmp clustering reaction specific to the HiSeq 3000/4000. In the ExAmp reaction, the reaction mix is extremely viscous. Apparently, this should limit DNA motility so that the chance that multiple fragments attach inside the same nanowell is reduced. Basically, the ExAmp reaction relies on the fact that library binding is much slower than library amplification. So, you could think of the reaction mix like of an agarose gel, where smaller fragments move faster. Thus, smaller libraries will populate and block a proportional higher number of nanowells on the patterned flowcell.
Genetic Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2017, 12:15 AM   #7
sinnafoch
Junior Member
 
Location: Austria

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 9
Default

Ok thank you for the explanation. This makes it more clear.
sinnafoch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2017, 07:48 PM   #8
finswimmer
Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinnafoch View Post
We have not thought about insert size however, I don't really understand why this may be an issue.
Beside the mentioned reason: If you have two librarys with the same concentration but with different fragment size, this also means, that the total number of fragments in the library with the lower fragment size is higher. And every fragment is apotential read.

fin swimmer
finswimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2017, 10:00 PM   #9
Genetic Librarian
Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by finswimmer View Post
Beside the mentioned reason: If you have two librarys with the same concentration but with different fragment size, this also means, that the total number of fragments in the library with the lower fragment size is higher. And every fragment is apotential read.
That should not be the case, because you pool equimolar.
Genetic Librarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2017, 01:30 AM   #10
finswimmer
Member
 
Location: Europe

Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genetic Librarian View Post
That should not be the case, because you pool equimolar.
You're right. I didn't have a coffee at the time of writing

fin swimmer
finswimmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
illumina, nextera, pooling, sharing, trueseq

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 02:09 PM.


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