SEQanswers

Go Back   SEQanswers > Applications Forums > RNA Sequencing



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RNA-Seq: High-Throughput Illumina Strand-Specific RNA Sequencing Library Preparation. Newsbot! Literature Watch 1 01-22-2013 12:48 AM
directional mRNA-Seq Sample Preparation Claire1 Sample Prep / Library Generation 3 02-02-2012 01:47 AM
RNA-Seq: A Strand-Specific Library Preparation Protocol for RNA Sequencing. Newsbot! Literature Watch 0 09-29-2011 07:00 AM
ScriptSeq mRNA-Seq Library Preparation Kit upendra_35 RNA Sequencing 39 05-05-2011 07:30 AM
ScriptSeqTM mRNA-Seq Library Preparation Kit upendra_35 Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 11-02-2010 12:14 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-22-2011, 03:15 PM   #21
Basia
Junior Member
 
Location: Riverside,CA

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1
Default poly A purification from tomato total RNA

Hi all
I have been trying to get good mRNA from tomato total RNA using Dynabeads Oligo(dT) from invitrogen. mRNA I am getting is a good quality with 1-2% rRNA contamination. My problem is the amount. I can only purified 0.2%of mRNA from my total RNA. Have anyone isolate mRNA from tomato? How much of poly A can I expect to be purified? What methods would you recommended to use.
Thanks,
Basia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 01:27 AM   #22
james hadfield
Moderator
Cambridge, UK
Community Forum
 
Location: Cambridge, UK

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 221
Default

Li Zhang: have you considere using a microarray? Depending on what you want to do the cost, time to prepare samples and time for bioinformatics could all be significantly cheaper on an array.

RNA-Seq will give you more information but right now I would say you have to work pretty hard to get it.

Comments anyone? Microarray vs sequencing; are microarrays dead?
james hadfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 07:57 AM   #23
HESmith
Senior Member
 
Location: Washington DC

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 490
Default

I don't think microarrays are dead, but their prognosis is poor in the long term. Sequencing offers some serious advantages in terms of sensitivity, flexibility (not limited by chip availability), and cost (which will only continue to decrease). The big disadvantages are the sheer amount of data (25K genes vs. 25M+ reads) and relatively steep learning curve for mastering the analysis tools. But, much like microarrays, off-the-shelf software suitable for bench scientists (no disparagement intended; I consider myself one) will make the transition easier.
HESmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 09:59 AM   #24
li zhang
Junior Member
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by james hadfield View Post
Li Zhang: have you considere using a microarray? Depending on what you want to do the cost, time to prepare samples and time for bioinformatics could all be significantly cheaper on an array.

RNA-Seq will give you more information but right now I would say you have to work pretty hard to get it.

Comments anyone? Microarray vs sequencing; are microarrays dead?
I wanna examine transcriptome including novel transcripts, I am told microarray is not so sensitive
li zhang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2011, 10:22 AM   #25
hoytpr
Member
 
Location: Stillwater

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 35
Default

I've been working with microarrays since they were invented. Now I am beginning RNA-Seq. Microarrays are not dead yet... obviously, because the problem of rRNA overwhelming your NGS data hasn't been solved. From reading, the Epicentre kit works well at removing rRNA, at least for human, mouse, and rat. But I am currently working on a transcriptome project with bats. It may be a long time before Epicentre gets around to a bat-kit. We will have to start with DNS-treatments, and obvious methods like rRNA subtractive hybridization. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the future of transcriptional profiling is by HTS exclusively.

Microarrays done correctly (CORRECTLY!) give excellent results (albeit not quantitative). But anyone printing their own microarrays better know what they are doing and do a lot of testing. Microarray printing will persist in the world of protein-protein interaction screening (and protein-DNA screening too). But only as a screening tool, validated later by SPR.

Sorry about my first post sounding like a rant.

Peter Hoyt
hoytpr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 02:10 PM   #26
neveaire
Junior Member
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Default ribodepletion using invitrogen ribominus

I'm going to attempt a ribodepletion using Invitrogen's RiboMinus Eukaryote Kit for RNA-Seq. Has anyone used this? Do you typically do the concentration step afterwards?

I tried it once with about 3ug input and noticed that without concentration the yield was simply too dilute. After concentration it was better, but the recovery was only about 2% of the input.

Thoughts appreciated.
neveaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2011, 03:05 PM   #27
irit
Junior Member
 
Location: Pacific Northwest

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5
Default

I have used this kit a few times. For really effective removal of ribosomal RNA (as seen in bioanalyzer track) I had to do 2 rounds of ribodepletion. I had about 20% recovery (according to nanodrop, so take it with a grain of salt).

Do you use glycogen or some other carrier for the precipitation? The biggest problem is to miss your pellet because it isn't easily visible.
irit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 03:54 AM   #28
torbean
Member
 
Location: EMEA

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10
Default

A little question to the topic: it is stated in the Dynabeads Kit that eluting and re-binding mRNA extract to the washed beads removes rRNA concentration. Is it so?

I am hesitating whether to put Invitrogen RiboMinus on top, my mRNA concentrations are usually quite limited...
__________________
imho lol
torbean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 08:40 AM   #29
protist
Senior Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torbean View Post
A little question to the topic: it is stated in the Dynabeads Kit that eluting and re-binding mRNA extract to the washed beads removes rRNA concentration. Is it so?

I am hesitating whether to put Invitrogen RiboMinus on top, my mRNA concentrations are usually quite limited...
We have consistently used Dynabeads for all our Eukaryotic libraries - 2 rounds of purification - <5% are non mRNA. Most of our libraries start with 1-2 ug total RNA and we have never had any problems. For Bacterial libraries I have used RiboMinus but have recently switched to RiboZero kits as they have seriously out performed the RiboMinus for some of our bacteria of interest. For your library prep I would recommend as few unnecessary manipulations to the RNA as possible and 2 rounds of polyA selection followed by RiboMnus seems a bit excessive to me...
protist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 05:15 AM   #30
torbean
Member
 
Location: EMEA

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10
Default

I see. Ok. Thanks.
Do you screen for rRNA contamination anyhow? PCR or so? I saw no bands on RNA gels for rRNA, but around 40% reads were rRNA after sequencing run
__________________
imho lol
torbean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 06:18 AM   #31
mercier
Junior Member
 
Location: Brussels

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Arrow Ribominus

Quote:
Originally Posted by walle View Post
Hi wiggy

I have tried Ribominus and it does not work.. might be my RNA is degraded.. I have never analyzed 18S and 28S rRNA by qRTPCR. Could you please let me know how to do it?

Thanks
walle
Hello,

I'm trying to improve the rRNA depletion with the Ribominus for RNA-seq but at this time I can recover only 250 ng of rRNA depleted RNA with 10 g at the beginning...
They say that normally I have to recover between 1 and 2 g...
But the depletion works... Can I know how much you recover?
mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2012, 01:31 PM   #32
neveaire
Junior Member
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Default

Using the ribominus kit from Invitrogen, I generally recover between 5-10% of mRNA from total RNA (from human cell lines). I've been starting with 2-3 ug, so 250ng seems very low given your starting input. I have noticed that instead of incubating at 37C on a heat block, a water bath works much better.
neveaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:09 AM   #33
mercier
Junior Member
 
Location: Brussels

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5
Default

Thank's for your reply... I've used first a heat block for the 70C incubation and after directly transfert to a heat block at 37C... Did you let the tube in the same bath and cold in it during the following 30 minutes?
mercier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 05:25 AM   #34
ETHANol
Senior Member
 
Location: Western Australia

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 310
Default

There are a few threads here where people say RiboZero works way better then Ribominus.
__________________
--------------
Ethan
ETHANol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2012, 06:18 AM   #35
protist
Senior Member
 
Location: Ireland

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercier View Post
Thank's for your reply... I've used first a heat block for the 70C incubation and after directly transfert to a heat block at 37C... Did you let the tube in the same bath and cold in it during the following 30 minutes?
I have used and RiboMinus both for eukaryotic and bacterial libraries and have never achieved anything near the quoted depletion. I have been using RiboZero for the few months and have seen a vast improvement. For one set of libraries where the best depletion we could get with RiboMinus was a mere 20% (80% rRNA in seq reads) the same RNA treated with RibZero only had 5% rRNA contaminating reads. I tried many tweaks to get better results with the RiboMinus but was unsuccessful. For our bacterial libraries the RiboZero is more expensive than RiboMinus but the mRNA read number bump we get makes it worth it.
protist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2012, 11:50 AM   #36
neveaire
Junior Member
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercier View Post
Thank's for your reply... I've used first a heat block for the 70C incubation and after directly transfert to a heat block at 37C... Did you let the tube in the same bath and cold in it during the following 30 minutes?
So I used a heat block for the 70C incubation and did all 37C incubations (30 or 15min) in a water bath. It worked well for me using the eukaryotic kit, but others have had better luck with the Epibio ribozero kit. I've been meaning to try that as well, but if you get something that works, best to stick with it. Good luck.
neveaire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2012, 03:03 PM   #37
ramsemm
Member
 
Location: USA

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 12
Default

Hi All,

I am interested in looking at the metatranscriptome of some soil samples. We are not sure if we will specifically target only bacteria or just look at mRNA from everything in the samples. But, I wanted to post here and see what more experience transcriptomics individuals think.

Originally, I looked into what to do if we were wanting to look at mRNA from everything in the soil, and it seemed as though Epicentre's exonuclease was the best bet. However, then I read a paper describing the biases associated with using exonuclease to remove rRNA.

So, then I thought we should just select one group either bacteria or eukaryotes, most likely bacteria. I am planning to use the MoBio PowerSoil RNA Isolation kit for the total RNA extraction. I have seen only two kit options for enrichment of bacterial mRNA, one is the MicrobeExpress kit and the other is the RiboZero Meta Bacteria kit. Now, I noticed with the MicrobeExpress kit they recommend you also use the MegaClear kit to remove 5S rRNA and tRNAs. Is this what others typically do? Also, is there any mRNA enrichment kit that also includes or pairs well with a DNase treatment? Or is this usually necessary?

My overall goal with these samples is to get total RNA extracted and enrich for mRNA. These samples will then be sent for sequencing on an Illumina HiSeq for a 2x100bp run. Does anyone out there have any suggestions on handling/processing of the total RNA to enrich for either overall mRNA (prokaryotic and eukaryotic; without significant bias) or just bacterial mRNA? I have been looking through the literature but there seems to be a lot of variability.

Thank you all in advance!
ramsemm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO