Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • suludana
    Member
    • May 2008
    • 61

    mRNAseq coverage

    Hi,
    I would like to know the approximate coverage obtained in a Human mRNAseq PE run (100+100 bp).
    I know that it is difficult to estimate the approximate size of the transcriptome, and of course it changes from tissue to tissue and from moment to moment. But I would like to have an idea.
    Someone with mRNAseq experience could help me?
    Thanks
  • SEQme
    Junior Member
    • Sep 2010
    • 1

    #2
    The literature is relatively consistent in terms of coverage. The older papers (i.e. Blencowe) suggest that 100 million reads of 36 bp paired end will sufficiently cover a human transcriptome. We have found this to be true with 120 bp paired end runs. 100 million reads will maximally cover the transcriptome with at least 1 read.

    Comment

    • malachig
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2010
      • 117

      #3
      As you say. It varies considerably depending on the criteria. I would agree with SAQme's quoted depth as a good target for 'covering the transcriptome'.

      However, it also depends on what you are asking of the data (mutation calling, expressed vs. not expressed, detection of minor isoforms, measuring subtle differences in expression between conditions, etc.). If you want to do all of these things for all genes, from the lowest expressed gene to the highest, you may find yourself wishing for more depth.

      One way to get a feel for this is to look at the output for many different libraries of different composition.

      The following link provides summaries for many libraries that were analyzed in the context of differential and alternative gene expression. These libraries ranged from paired 36-mers to paired 75-mers, and from ~15 million reads per sample to ~500 million, for human and mouse transcriptomes corresponding to ~100 tissues and cell lines.
      Provides an overview of experimental validation of the ALEXA-Seq approach including links to raw data, examples, gene lists, and searchable visualizations of specific genes

      Comment

      Latest Articles

      Collapse

      • GATTACAT
        Reply to Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by GATTACAT
        Love this - good data definitely starts from good input, and poor input can only give relatively poor data. I particularly like the mention of Nanodrop/absorbance based methods for quantification. It's such a toss up if you'll get an accurate reading or what amounts to a randomly generated number, and a lot of library/sequencing related issues can be traced back to poor quant.
        07-01-2026, 11:43 AM
      • SEQadmin2
        Nine Things a Sample Prep Scientist Thinks About Before Sequencing
        by SEQadmin2


        I’m not a sequencing expert. I’m a purification scientist who uses NGS to evaluate workflows my group develops. With this perspective, we think about the sample first and the NGS workflow second. The sequencer is an exceptionally honest reporter, but it can only report on what you give it, so whether you get clean, interpretable data from an NGS workflow is largely determined before you begin.

        Here are nine questions we think about, in roughly the order they matter, before...
        06-18-2026, 07:11 AM

      ad_right_rmr

      Collapse

      News

      Collapse

      Topics Statistics Last Post
      Started by SEQadmin2, 07-02-2026, 11:08 AM
      0 responses
      16 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-30-2026, 05:37 AM
      0 responses
      17 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-26-2026, 11:10 AM
      0 responses
      21 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Started by SEQadmin2, 06-17-2026, 06:09 AM
      0 responses
      54 views
      0 reactions
      Last Post SEQadmin2  
      Working...