Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • pmiguel
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2008
    • 2328

    #16
    Originally posted by Old guy View Post
    Do you use different standards to quantitate based on the GC content of the genome or based on the size of the genome?
    No. Most of the time these figures are "ballpark" anyway. 50% high or low will make little difference.

    Phenol or RNA, though, can easily contribute >90% of the UV absorbance of a genomic DNA sample. 10-fold low on the amount of input DNA does make a difference.

    --
    Phillip

    Comment

    • LMcSeq
      Member
      • Feb 2009
      • 33

      #17
      Hi all,
      Quick question: I'm finding the my average frag length on the high sensitivity chip at the end of the rapid protocol is on the larger side. My sequencer results have had low average fragment lengths. I'm wondering if the larger frags aren't being amplified because they're too big for the microreactors, causing preferential amplification of smaller frags. I'm using the Covaris settings recommended for 500bp average. Anyone else having any similar issue?

      Comment

      • pmiguel
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2008
        • 2328

        #18
        Originally posted by LMcSeq View Post
        Hi all,
        Quick question: I'm finding the my average frag length on the high sensitivity chip at the end of the rapid protocol is on the larger side. My sequencer results have had low average fragment lengths. I'm wondering if the larger frags aren't being amplified because they're too big for the microreactors, causing preferential amplification of smaller frags. I'm using the Covaris settings recommended for 500bp average. Anyone else having any similar issue?
        It could be. Typical PCR reactions yield vastly more product for short templates than for longer ones.

        But it could also be that your read lengths are short for some other reason. If your templates are actually short you should have a high number in your "Short Primer" metric. If not, then something else is likely the source of your short reads.

        I will mention one: polyA, of course, is the bane of 454 runs...

        Even with random primed cDNA libraries, it is possible to run into polyA problems. It should be less, but polyA+ RNA isolation will enrich for polyA. If you start with heavily degraded RNA and pull out polyA from that, you may get a high percentage of your cDNA being polyA or polyT--even if you used random primed reverse transcription.

        --
        Phillip

        Comment

        • LMcSeq
          Member
          • Feb 2009
          • 33

          #19
          Hi Phillip,
          Thanks for your reply. We've had our 454 FAS out and he said that its likely a problem in library prep or emPCR based on the output from the support tool (which customers can't view themselves). He said the short primer is in spec.

          We are shearing whole genomic microbial DNA, not cDNAs. I think that was another contributor to this thread.

          Comment

          • pmiguel
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2008
            • 2328

            #20
            Originally posted by LMcSeq View Post
            Hi Phillip,
            Thanks for your reply. We've had our 454 FAS out and he said that its likely a problem in library prep or emPCR based on the output from the support tool (which customers can't view themselves). He said the short primer is in spec.

            We are shearing whole genomic microbial DNA, not cDNAs. I think that was another contributor to this thread.
            Okay, but if short primer is in spec, that means you do not have a large number of reads that traverse the insert completely. So preferential amplification of your small templates is not the issue.

            It could be that you have too many templates longer than the maximum optimum amplification length of the emPCR kit (~1 kb, I think). Those would tend to produce lightly templated beads that might give you short reads.

            --
            Phillip

            Comment

            • LMcSeq
              Member
              • Feb 2009
              • 33

              #21
              That's what I suspect is the problem, but I'm not sure how to effectively troubleshoot it with the new rapid protocol since the chip isn't run until the end of all of the steps are complete. I don't want to have to make libraries over and over...
              I'm not sure if I should do a calibration with my XP beads and check the avg. frag length with different Covaris shearing times (don't know if it translates to the new procedure with the sizing solution and standard XP volume).
              Any suggestions?

              Comment

              • pmiguel
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2008
                • 2328

                #22
                Originally posted by LMcSeq View Post
                That's what I suspect is the problem, but I'm not sure how to effectively troubleshoot it with the new rapid protocol since the chip isn't run until the end of all of the steps are complete. I don't want to have to make libraries over and over...
                I'm not sure if I should do a calibration with my XP beads and check the avg. frag length with different Covaris shearing times (don't know if it translates to the new procedure with the sizing solution and standard XP volume).
                Any suggestions?
                We would just size fractionate with an agarose gel if we got a library too much outside the size range. I realize that is not optimum for large numbers of samples, though.

                Also, why not use nebulization instead of sonication? I believe nebulized DNA would have a higher fraction of ligatable ends after end-repair than sonicated DNA.

                --
                Phillip

                Comment

                • kmcarr
                  Senior Member
                  • May 2008
                  • 1181

                  #23
                  Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
                  Okay, but if short primer is in spec, that means you do not have a large number of reads that traverse the insert completely. So preferential amplification of your small templates is not the issue.
                  Phillip, reads will only be reported as short primer if they are rejected because they are too short (≤ 84 flows, ~50nt) after trimming off the B-adapter sequence. If an insert is 250nt long the raw read will likely traverse into the adapter which will be trimmed from the final read output. This will not be included in the shortPrimer filter count, that only reports reads which are rejected, not simply trimmed.

                  Comment

                  • seqAll
                    Member
                    • Nov 2009
                    • 21

                    #24
                    Originally posted by LMcSeq View Post
                    Hi all,
                    Quick question: I'm finding the my average frag length on the high sensitivity chip at the end of the rapid protocol is on the larger side. My sequencer results have had low average fragment lengths. I'm wondering if the larger frags aren't being amplified because they're too big for the microreactors, causing preferential amplification of smaller frags. I'm using the Covaris settings recommended for 500bp average. Anyone else having any similar issue?
                    Hi LMcSeq,

                    Do you have leftover enrichment beads? If so, you can run normal PCR with a few of these beads as template, using the amplification primers, for a few cycles (with the same cylcling condition as emPCR, and maybe one or two cycles, so not to skew the size distribution). Then run on a gel to check the size distribution.

                    Next time, you can save the supernatant after melting (the supernatant are single-stranded templates released off the beads), and run them on a gel as a control step before you proceed to sequencing.

                    It would be interesting to see if it is the sequencing part (or maybe the algorithm) that can not take such long fragments.
                    Last edited by seqAll; 03-05-2010, 01:47 AM.

                    Comment

                    • pmiguel
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2008
                      • 2328

                      #25
                      Originally posted by kmcarr View Post
                      Phillip, reads will only be reported as short primer if they are rejected because they are too short (≤ 84 flows, ~50nt) after trimming off the B-adapter sequence. If an insert is 250nt long the raw read will likely traverse into the adapter which will be trimmed from the final read output. This will not be included in the shortPrimer filter count, that only reports reads which are rejected, not simply trimmed.
                      Wow, thanks for that information. Seems absolutely crazy for Roche not to provide a metric or graph that shows the length of library molecules for which a B-adapter sequence was located. With that metric you can immediately see many library issues. Without it you can waste your time looking for instrument problems.

                      I have been trying to convince Applied Biosystems of the same thing.
                      --
                      Phillip

                      Comment

                      • kmcarr
                        Senior Member
                        • May 2008
                        • 1181

                        #26
                        Originally posted by pmiguel View Post
                        Wow, thanks for that information. Seems absolutely crazy for Roche not to provide a metric or graph that shows the length of library molecules for which a B-adapter sequence was located. With that metric you can immediately see many library issues. Without it you can waste your time looking for instrument problems.
                        Yes, it certainly would be nice. To check for B-adapter I output the untrimmed FASTA from the SFF file (sffinfo -s -n) and then search the reads against the B-adapter sequence with cross_match or fuzznuc (or your favorite sequence search tool).

                        Comment

                        • pmiguel
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2008
                          • 2328

                          #27
                          Originally posted by kmcarr View Post
                          Yes, it certainly would be nice. To check for B-adapter I output the untrimmed FASTA from the SFF file (sffinfo -s -n) and then search the reads against the B-adapter sequence with cross_match or fuzznuc (or your favorite sequence search tool).
                          Yes.
                          As it turns out cross_match and fuzznuc are my favorite sequence search tools.
                          Have you tried to see long (read-killing) homopolymer runs this way? Or do they not show up in even the untrimmed sequence?

                          --
                          Phillip

                          Comment

                          • bia
                            Junior Member
                            • Nov 2008
                            • 5

                            #28
                            Hi everybody,
                            does anyone experienced emPCR inhibition problems when using shotgun rapid libraries?
                            Thanks,
                            bia

                            Comment

                            • Cambridge454
                              Junior Member
                              • Nov 2009
                              • 7

                              #29
                              Rapid Library length problems

                              I am also having problems with the Rapid Library producing really long average fragment lengths >900bp. I use the recommended nebulization settings, which worked perfectly well for old version Shotgun libraries (600bp avg.). I have used the new vented caps and the rubber stopper/filter nebulizer set-up with very similar results. Should I increase the nitrogen pressure to say 2.5 bar instead of 2.1 bar?

                              Comment

                              • LMcSeq
                                Member
                                • Feb 2009
                                • 33

                                #30
                                Cambridge454--I get long frag lengths with using the Covaris as well. If you adjust the nebulization, I would add more time rather than change the pressure. Try doing a time course study (that's what I did with the Covaris). Shear at the same pressure for different amts of time and assess on the Bioanalyzer. Unfortunately, I think the longer fragment lengths are just part of the rapid library process. I'm just hoping it doesn't cause preferential amplification of smaller frags since the larger ones may not fit into the microreactor bubbles during emPCR.

                                Comment

                                Latest Articles

                                Collapse

                                • seqadmin
                                  Pathogen Surveillance with Advanced Genomic Tools
                                  by seqadmin




                                  The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for proactive pathogen surveillance systems. As ongoing threats like avian influenza and newly emerging infections continue to pose risks, researchers are working to improve how quickly and accurately pathogens can be identified and tracked. In a recent SEQanswers webinar, two experts discussed how next-generation sequencing (NGS) and machine learning are shaping efforts to monitor viral variation and trace the origins of infectious...
                                  03-24-2025, 11:48 AM
                                • seqadmin
                                  New Genomics Tools and Methods Shared at AGBT 2025
                                  by seqadmin


                                  This year’s Advances in Genome Biology and Technology (AGBT) General Meeting commemorated the 25th anniversary of the event at its original venue on Marco Island, Florida. While this year’s event didn’t include high-profile musical performances, the industry announcements and cutting-edge research still drew the attention of leading scientists.

                                  The Headliner
                                  The biggest announcement was Roche stepping back into the sequencing platform market. In the years since...
                                  03-03-2025, 01:39 PM

                                ad_right_rmr

                                Collapse

                                News

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-20-2025, 05:03 AM
                                0 responses
                                49 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-19-2025, 07:27 AM
                                0 responses
                                57 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-18-2025, 12:50 PM
                                0 responses
                                50 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Started by seqadmin, 03-03-2025, 01:15 PM
                                0 responses
                                201 views
                                0 reactions
                                Last Post seqadmin  
                                Working...