Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RNA-seq libraries - double peak after size selection

    Hi everyone,
    I get some weird results when measuring my RNA-seq libraries on Bioanalyzer and now desperately need an advice...
    The libraries look like a peak of expected length (300-400 or 400-500) and a higher peak (>1000 bp according to BA) (the image is attached).
    I'm using TruSeq RNA v.2 kit, following the protocol (except for using qiagen columns instead of ampure beads and a size-selection step after PCR enrichment).
    This is the first time that I'm making RNA-seq libraries but I have some experience with standard DNA libraries - and none of them looked like this. It was always a peak of expected length, sometimes with traces of adapter dimers at 120 bp - but never any peaks higher than expected.
    What puzzles me the most is that I got this AFTER size selection. I'm pretty sure that I cut the band about 300-500 bp and certainly not 1500-2000 bp! So this should be something generated from my 300-500 bp fragments. What could it be? A single-stranded DNA? If so, will it affect the sequencing resuts? Does it make sense to try to run these libraries or it would be safer to redo them?
    Thank you very much in advance!
    Attached Files
    Last edited by MLog; 02-08-2012, 02:46 PM.

  • #2
    Hi there,

    I got the exact same pattern you describe (couldn't see the image). See this post for what I found, what others suggested, and to see the end results. Let me know if you'd like more information.

    Techniques and protocol discussions on sample preparation, library generation, methods and ideas


    Best of luck!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ssing View Post
      Hi there,

      I got the exact same pattern you describe (couldn't see the image). See this post for what I found, what others suggested, and to see the end results. Let me know if you'd like more information.

      Techniques and protocol discussions on sample preparation, library generation, methods and ideas


      Best of luck!
      Thanks, ssing! This is a very useful link. In my case the reason is not the beads - just because I don't use them. So I will certainly try heating and cooling.
      PS: there was indeed a problem with the attached image but now it should work.

      Comment


      • #4
        It is due to too many cycles of PCR. When you have a high concentration of DNA fragments with complimentary ends, they can hybridize with each other, leading to the longer fragment sizes. Did you amplify each library with the same number of cycles or did you titrate the cycle number?
        If you titrate the number of PCR cycles, you can be sure you don't get these effects and introduce minimal PCR bias into your samples.
        You can see the gel I have attached to this post for an example of the appearance of these double sized bands as the number of PCR cycles goes from 6-18.

        Edit:
        The gel is 1.5% agarose post-stained with EtBr. The ladder is an Invitrogen 1kb+ ladder, so the sizes visible are 100,200,300,400,500,650.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by pbluescript; 03-05-2012, 04:59 AM. Reason: Added more information about the gel.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ssing View Post
          Hi there,

          I got the exact same pattern you describe (couldn't see the image). See this post for what I found, what others suggested, and to see the end results. Let me know if you'd like more information.

          Techniques and protocol discussions on sample preparation, library generation, methods and ideas


          Best of luck!
          Hi ssing,
          Glad that worked for you. However, about the gel you ran after heating/cooling -- was that agarose? If so, did you pre-stain (eg, EtBr in loading dye and/or gel and/or running buffer) or post-stain the gel?

          --
          Phillip

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pbluescript View Post
            You can see the gel I have attached to this post for an example of the appearance of these double sized bands as the number of PCR cycles goes from 6-18.
            Hi pbluescript,
            That is a great picture. Could we get info about the sieving matrix (agarose or acrylamide?) and whether you pre or post-stained it? And what the stain was (EtBr, SyBR-safe, SyBr-gold, etc)?

            --
            Phillip

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
              Hi pbluescript,
              That is a great picture. Could we get info about the sieving matrix (agarose or acrylamide?) and whether you pre or post-stained it? And what the stain was (EtBr, SyBR-safe, SyBr-gold, etc)?

              --
              Phillip
              Sure. This one was 1.5% agarose post-stained with EtBr. I've actually tried it with 1-2% agarose post-stained with EtBr, Sybr-safe, and Sybr-gold and get identical results. I have also used the Invitrogen E-gels and see the same pattern.

              I generally take an aliquot of each library pre-PCR and titrate the number of cycles to decide how many each library needs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pbluescript View Post
                Sure. This one was 1.5% agarose post-stained with EtBr. I've actually tried it with 1-2% agarose post-stained with EtBr, Sybr-safe, and Sybr-gold and get identical results. I have also used the Invitrogen E-gels and see the same pattern.

                I generally take an aliquot of each library pre-PCR and titrate the number of cycles to decide how many each library needs.
                Then I am not sure what to think. I thought most of the double peak phenomenon was the result of the extra sieving resistance BioAnalyzer chip polymer had for ssDNA vs. dsDNA. But you are showing the same phenomenon in agarose -- agarose without run-time staining. Strange.

                --
                Phillip

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Phillip,

                  It was a pre-stained agarose gel. Thanks!

                  Sonal

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
                    Then I am not sure what to think. I thought most of the double peak phenomenon was the result of the extra sieving resistance BioAnalyzer chip polymer had for ssDNA vs. dsDNA. But you are showing the same phenomenon in agarose -- agarose without run-time staining. Strange.

                    --
                    Phillip
                    I always thought it was the complimentary adapter ends from separate molecules hybridizing, increasing the overall length of the fragments. As the concentration goes up, this becomes more likely. I haven't directly tested that though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by pbluescript View Post
                      It is due to too many cycles of PCR. When you have a high concentration of DNA fragments with complimentary ends, they can hybridize with each other, leading to the longer fragment sizes. Did you amplify each library with the same number of cycles or did you titrate the cycle number?
                      If you titrate the number of PCR cycles, you can be sure you don't get these effects and introduce minimal PCR bias into your samples.
                      You can see the gel I have attached to this post for an example of the appearance of these double sized bands as the number of PCR cycles goes from 6-18.
                      They should pose no problem during sequencing as you denature before you load onto the cBot.
                      You could perform and additional PCR cycle with extra primers and mastermix if you want to check. The additional peak should disappear.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TonyBrooks View Post
                        They should pose no problem during sequencing as you denature before you load onto the cBot.
                        You could perform and additional PCR cycle with extra primers and mastermix if you want to check. The additional peak should disappear.
                        I agree. They've never caused me an issue. I use the appearance of the bands more as a guide to the maximum number of PCR cycles I need for a library.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi All

                          This will be my first post…also first time attempting the TruSeq protocol (followed exactly - 4ug total RNA, AmPureXP beads, 15cycle PCR amp). I seemed to have gotten exactly the same result as ssing did (http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15224), strong band at ±300-500bp with a HMW smear going all the way to the wells (1% EtBr pre-stained agarose gel attached). I had a heart attack when I saw this earlier today, but according to the post I have seen, it seems to be a regular result with the Truseq kit. I will try pmiguel’s advice on denaturing the libraries and rerunning the gel just to see if the smear clears up.

                          It seems then that these libraries are over amplified (if I understand correctly), but what effect will this have on a transcriptome assembling project? I am interested in read counts/ expression levels. Will an over amplified library result in too much of a bias in the results or will it be fine to continue with what I have?

                          I will still size-select for what its worth. What is a good insert size to aim for when attempting a de novo assembly?

                          Thanks for any advice
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by monkey_SEQ View Post
                            Hi All

                            This will be my first post…also first time attempting the TruSeq protocol (followed exactly - 4ug total RNA, AmPureXP beads, 15cycle PCR amp). I seemed to have gotten exactly the same result as ssing did (http://seqanswers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15224), strong band at ±300-500bp with a HMW smear going all the way to the wells (1% EtBr pre-stained agarose gel attached). I had a heart attack when I saw this earlier today, but according to the post I have seen, it seems to be a regular result with the Truseq kit. I will try pmiguel’s advice on denaturing the libraries and rerunning the gel just to see if the smear clears up.

                            It seems then that these libraries are over amplified (if I understand correctly), but what effect will this have on a transcriptome assembling project? I am interested in read counts/ expression levels. Will an over amplified library result in too much of a bias in the results or will it be fine to continue with what I have?

                            I will still size-select for what its worth. What is a good insert size to aim for when attempting a de novo assembly?

                            Thanks for any advice
                            Actually, those look fine to me. The smear is probably due to the high concentration of DNA.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by pbluescript View Post
                              It is due to too many cycles of PCR. When you have a high concentration of DNA fragments with complimentary ends, they can hybridize with each other, leading to the longer fragment sizes. Did you amplify each library with the same number of cycles or did you titrate the cycle number?
                              If you titrate the number of PCR cycles, you can be sure you don't get these effects and introduce minimal PCR bias into your samples.
                              You can see the gel I have attached to this post for an example of the appearance of these double sized bands as the number of PCR cycles goes from 6-18.
                              Very nice. Could you please provide ladder size? Thanks!

                              Comment

                              Latest Articles

                              Collapse

                              • seqadmin
                                Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
                                by seqadmin


                                Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
                                03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
                              • seqadmin
                                Techniques and Challenges in Conservation Genomics
                                by seqadmin



                                The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.

                                Avian Conservation
                                Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...
                                03-08-2024, 10:41 AM

                              ad_right_rmr

                              Collapse

                              News

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:37 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
                              0 responses
                              10 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                              0 responses
                              51 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                              0 responses
                              67 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seqadmin  
                              Working...
                              X