SEQanswers

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



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbeee needs help ... from the very beginning esuarp Clinical Sequencing 4 11-23-2015 04:51 AM
Poor Nextera XT index read quality on Miseq ustar Illumina/Solexa 2 07-22-2014 07:12 AM
Miseq:Trimming, and sequencing primers at the beginning of a read clintp Illumina/Solexa 5 01-15-2014 12:38 PM
Do nuclei need to be isolated at beginning of prep? ASL Sample Prep / Library Generation 0 04-11-2013 01:14 PM
The Beginning of the End for Exome Sequencing dongzw MGISEQ (FKA Complete Genomics) 9 07-17-2012 05:04 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-26-2016, 01:36 PM   #1
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default miseq beginning of r2 very poor quailty

I'm running amplicons (v4 16s, dual index, custom sequencing primers, Kozich/Schloss primers). I'd been having good luck so was dialing up my clustering density and dialing down my phiX. And then everything fell apart. I have one project that has very low diversity (microbial community wise) that I don't want to run by itself. So my last successful run and this current run that keep failing are both made up of 25% low diversity project samples and 75% regular diversity samples (which are still low diversity as far as sequencing goes).

Here's the q30 heatmap for the successful run:


Now the unsuccessful. This is the second attempt at this exact pool, the first had similar cluster density and phiX as the successful run but R2 was worthless (lots of Ns and 0% phiX aligning in R2) so my FAS wanted me to try rerunning it with lower density and much more phiX.


R1, I1, and I2 are all great. The indexing looks good (I'm multiplexing 120 samples and recovering 115 which is well within my expectations). R2 is bad. And no phiX is aligned. The lack of phiX and the indexing make me pretty confident it's not my library. But I'm at a loss what else it could be. My FAS is kicking this up to second level support, but I'd love to hear if anyone here has had this happen.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2016, 02:44 PM   #2
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,022
Default

Is this a 2x300 bp run? I am sure you have seen this thread.

What seems to be odd is that R2 for phiX does not align at all (I assume R1 is aligning ok?). This sounds like you sequencer may be misbehaving/operating outside normal parameters. Have there been other runs on this instrument that were successful? Have you tried a new phiX tube?
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2016, 04:42 PM   #3
nucacidhunter
Jafar Jabbari
 
Location: Melbourne

Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,231
Default

One possible cause of poor R2 could be low diversity of R2 region in comparison to R1 which would be different for different pools of input sample libraries explaining inconsistent run results. If it is not SBS kit or hardware issue you would have to lower density further down to 400-500 K and 20% PhiX for a decent R2 quality. By the way can you post an image of Data By Cycle %Base plot?
nucacidhunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 06:50 AM   #4
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

this is a 2x250 we tried the v3 kit twice with poor results so have stuck with v2. Geno-I'd seen that thread in the summer but apparently stopped following it, thanks. I was alerted by Illumina in June about the problem but our runs then were generally bad, I didn't realize that others were having the same 1st run fine, 2nd run very bad issue.

The % base is off the charts because of the sample types. But the run that worked was less even than the one that failed because the good run had 12% phix and the second failed had 23%

good %base


failed % base


The plot thickens, I was going to try running this library on a MiSeq across campus but that instrument has 2 fails on a RNAseq library running 2x250.

Last edited by thermophile; 01-27-2016 at 01:08 PM.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 06:54 AM   #5
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,022
Default

Can you comment on what is happening with phiX R2? Why is it not aligning (have you looked at the sequence, does it look random/with indels/N's)? What about phiX R1? You do have very low complexity samples.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 07:03 AM   #6
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

I haven't looked for the phiX seqs, but can do that. I was just looking at the % aligned, good run ~12% aligned both R1 and R2, bad run R1 23% R2 0%. When I look at the seqs for samples-there are ~20 N in the first ~40 bases. I can do pairwise blast for the R1 and R2 seqs, so the rest of the r2 is actual data.

I wasn't very clear about the structure of the amplicons, these are ~250bp so the first bases of r2 are the compliment of the last bases of R1. They are challenging libraries but this is our bread and butter library type.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2016, 11:43 AM   #7
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

just started a 12pM phiX, 500 cycle run. I'll update with how read 2 of that one looks in 2 days
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 12:58 PM   #8
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

well crap(ish). the phiX run looks fine. I'm waiting to hear back from my FAS with suggestions for moving forward with our major library type.

Anyone know how to find the lot info for reagent cartridges that you've thrown away? Is it in the run data somewhere?
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2016, 04:25 PM   #9
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,022
Default

Illumina should have that information, which your FAS should be able to get.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 06:32 AM   #10
microgirl123
Senior Member
 
Location: New England

Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 199
Default

https://my.illumina.com/MyIllumina/B...ot-number-from

Illumina has a bulletin about determining lot number after the fact!
microgirl123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 07:01 AM   #11
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

sweet, thanks.

The second level team is looking at my last few runs. FAS thinks it's software related, that for some reason RTA is suddenly having issues with our low diversity libraries.

eta, the lot checker doesn't seem to work. It's searching (if I put in nonsense it gives an error) but never popping up the table with the info. Tried in IE and firefox just in case it was browser dependent

Last edited by thermophile; 01-29-2016 at 10:41 AM.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 11:07 AM   #12
Number6
Member
 
Location: NY

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Default

Did you upgrade the MiSeq software released around the end of November last year? We did, and all low complexity library sequencing looked terrible. We rolled back the software and all has been fine since.
Number6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 11:32 AM   #13
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

This is a new to me Miseq as of late Nov (replaced one that continually had focusing issues) We're running MCS 2.5.05. FAS was talking about reinstalling all the software but then decided that he didn't want to do that unless second level told him to. I haven't updated anything on the machine, but it's possible that someone else clicked an update button for something other than miseq controller.

Current plan is to run a mix amplicon and truseq genome run Monday.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 11:48 AM   #14
Number6
Member
 
Location: NY

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Default

The upgrade was to MCS v2.6; we rolled back to MCS v2.5
Number6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 12:52 PM   #15
GenoMax
Senior Member
 
Location: East Coast USA

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 7,022
Default

@Number6: Was the downgrade recommended by Illumina or something you thought of trying?

We upgraded multiple MiSeq in November and noticed that our machines started keeping the temp image files for some reason after the upgrade (this started ballooning the raw data folder size). Tech support just had us turn off the image saves as a workaround. They said that no one else had reported this.
GenoMax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2016, 08:41 PM   #16
bunce
Member
 
Location: Perth

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 55
Default

This is an interesting thread - we also had a drop in MiSeq performance (in low complexity libraries) after upgrading to 2.6 and like some of you rolled back to 2.5. I was told there was nothing in the upgrade that might cause this but our runs turned to custard about the time we upgraded. I am staying put in 2.5 for as long as possible.
bunce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2016, 07:36 AM   #17
Number6
Member
 
Location: NY

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 20
Default

Hi GenoMax, not in so many words, but they had reports of poor performance and the primary improvements in MCS 2.6 were for the Trusight Tumor 15 workflow, so rolling back was suggested if we weren't running that.
Number6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2016, 01:48 AM   #18
WhatsOEver
Senior Member
 
Location: Germany

Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 215
Default

Just in case you haven't seen it: The 2.6 version is currently not available due to a "review"

Quote:
The recently-released MiSeq Updater v2.6.1.4 has been temporarily removed from our website for review. We will update customers as information becomes available.
From: https://support.illumina.com/downloa...s_updater.html
WhatsOEver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2016, 01:13 PM   #19
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

Well it's clearly library specific, though I can't figure out how. I had a successful run last week 75% 7pM 16s amplicons, 20% 8pM truseq genome, 5% phiX. Tried running the problem library again-60% 6pM 16s amplicon, 10% ITS amplicon, 15% 8pM nextera genome, 15% phiX. Again the first read and the indices look great (700k, 86%PF, 16% aligned to phiX). Second read is horrible and only 3% aligned to phiX. This run is higher diversity (though still very low diversity by general Illumina guidelines) and lower clustering than the last successful run.

Last edited by thermophile; 02-10-2016 at 01:19 PM.
thermophile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2016, 12:14 PM   #20
thermophile
Senior Member
 
Location: CT

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 243
Default

This run finally worked on a different machine. FAE is coming out next week to check the temps on both machines and to adjust my machine to match the one that worked.
thermophile 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 09:07 PM.


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