Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • AaronS
    Junior Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 4

    Yeast ChIP-seq; Sonication/Bioanalyzer question

    Hi,
    I've just started doing ChIP-seq, and am having difficulty getting my INPUT and IP DNA fragment sizes in the proper size range for Illumina sequencing. My ChIP protocol seems to work fine, as I can show enrichment of a 360bp region surrounding a known binding site in my IP sample compared to the INPUT sample by pcr.

    However, our Bioanalyzer reports that the size fragmentation is too small for the library prep. This seems to indicate that I'm over-sonicating the samples. I've been following a protocol published earlier this year by Mike Snyder's lab http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(10)70004-5. In this protocol the sonication procedure uses a Branson Digital Sonifier @ 5x30sec @ power 50.

    In our lab, we have a Branson Analog Sonifier and I've tried sonicating 6x10sec @ power 20 and 3x10sec @ power 20. In both cases, the bioanalyzer indicates that my DNA size fragmentation is mostly <100bp. However, when I run the INPUT DNA on a 2% Agarose gel, I see a smear with the greatest DNA concentration ~1,000bp and no DNA below 100bp.
    Last edited by AaronS; 01-14-2011, 11:13 AM.
  • jorgemon
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2009
    • 4

    #2
    Hi AaronS.
    I think that the not real result is the agarose gel. The bioanalyzer is more specific than gel, where you have less resolution to see small DNA quantity and migration is not the same (the upper marker of a DNA HS is 10380bp, but you see all the largest fragmented sizes grouped around 1500bp). If you try with DNA 1000 or 7500, you will have the same result (you will see all large sizes grouped around 1500bp too).
    I think that the smear of fragmented sizes that you see in bioanalyzer, you can't see in agarose...you only can see sizes with more concentration (usually largest sizes but they are in correct size compared with marker, not as occurs in bioanalyzer).
    The sample that you see in bioanalyzer at 100bp, may be DNA degradation of Chip and Input. If you purify the samples by column (Qiaquick for example), and run again the samples at bioanalyzer, you will not see anything less than 150bp.
    You can try to fragment more Inputs with different times. Then you can run it in a bioanalyzer and know if you are fragment too much your samples.
    It can be a protein contamination from previous step too (it could explain this results).
    In order to can see better the DNA purified by column, you can put 2-3ul evaporated (quantitative range of DNA HS is up 0.5ng/ul).
    I hope you can solve this problem with my comments.
    Regards.

    Comment

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • SEQadmin2
      Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
      by SEQadmin2


      Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

      The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
      ...
      07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
    • SEQadmin2
      Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
      by SEQadmin2



      Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
      ...
      07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
    • SEQadmin2
      Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
      by SEQadmin2



      Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

      There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
      07-08-2026, 05:17 AM

    ad_right_rmr

    Collapse

    News

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by SEQadmin2, Yesterday, 12:17 PM
    0 responses
    11 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-23-2026, 11:41 AM
    0 responses
    11 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
    0 responses
    23 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Started by SEQadmin2, 07-13-2026, 10:26 AM
    0 responses
    37 views
    0 reactions
    Last Post SEQadmin2  
    Working...