Dataset Information

Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Metatranscriptomics is rapidly expanding our knowledge of gene expression patterns and pathway dynamics in natural microbial communities. However, to cope with the challenges of environmental sampling, various rRNA removal and cDNA synthesis methods have been applied in published microbial metatranscriptomic studies, making comparisons arduous. Whereas efficiency and biases introduced by rRNA removal methods have been relatively well explored, the impact of cDNA synthesis and library preparation on transcript abundance remains poorly characterized. The evaluation of potential biases introduced at this step is challenging for metatranscriptomic samples, where data analyses are complex, for example because of the lack of reference genomes. RESULTS: Herein, we tested four cDNA synthesis and Illumina library preparation protocols on a simplified mixture of total RNA extracted from four bacterial species. In parallel, RNA from each microbe was tested individually. cDNA synthesis was performed on rRNA depleted samples using the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Preparation, the SMARTer Stranded RNA-Seq, or the Ovation RNA-Seq V2 System. A fourth experiment was made directly from total RNA using the Encore Complete Prokaryotic RNA-Seq. The obtained sequencing data were analyzed for: library complexity and reproducibility; rRNA removal efficiency and bias; the number of genes detected; coverage uniformity; and the impact of protocols on expression biases. Significant variations, especially in organism representation and gene expression patterns, were observed among the four methods. TruSeq generally performed best, but is limited by its requirement of hundreds of nanograms of total RNA. The SMARTer method appears the best solution for smaller amounts of input RNA. For very low amounts of RNA, the Ovation System provides the only option; however, the observed biases emphasized its limitations for quantitative analyses. CONCLUSIONS: cDNA and library preparation methods may affect the outcome and interpretation of metatranscriptomic data. The most appropriate method should be chosen based on the available quantity of input RNA and the quantitative or non-quantitative objectives of the study. When low amounts of RNA are available, as in most metatranscriptomic studies, the SMARTer method seems to be the best compromise to obtain reliable results. This study emphasized the difficulty in comparing metatranscriptomic studies performed using different methods.

SUBMITTER: Alberti A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4213505 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data.

Alberti Adriana A Belser Caroline C Engelen Stéfan S Bertrand Laurie L Orvain Céline C Brinas Laura L Cruaud Corinne C Giraut Laurène L Da Silva Corinne C Firmo Cyril C Aury Jean-Marc JM Wincker Patrick P

BMC genomics 20141020

<h4>Background</h4>Metatranscriptomics is rapidly expanding our knowledge of gene expression patterns and pathway dynamics in natural microbial communities. However, to cope with the challenges of environmental sampling, various rRNA removal and cDNA synthesis methods have been applied in published microbial metatranscriptomic studies, making comparisons arduous. Whereas efficiency and biases introduced by rRNA removal methods have been relatively well explored, the impact of cDNA synthesis and ...[more]

PMID: 25331572

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing. Methods and Materials: Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression. Results: Sequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12-20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17-20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5-6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20-25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and “novel” lincRNAs. Conclusion: Different library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications.

Project description:ObjectivesThe sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing.Methods and materialsEight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina's mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression.ResultsSequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12-20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17-20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5-6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20-25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and "novel" lincRNAs.ConclusionDifferent library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications.

Project description:BackgroundmRNA sequencing is a powerful technique, which is used to investigate the transcriptome status of a gene of interest, such as its transcription level and splicing variants. Presently, several RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) methods have been developed; however, the relative advantage of each method has remained unknown. Here we used three commercially available RNA-Seq library preparation kits; the traditional method (TruSeq), in addition to full-length double-stranded cDNA methods (SMARTer and TeloPrime) to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of these three approaches in transcriptome analysis.ResultsWe observed that the number of expressed genes detected from the TeloPrime sequencing method was fewer than that obtained using the TruSeq and SMARTer. We also observed that the expression patterns between TruSeq and SMARTer correlated strongly. Alternatively, SMARTer and TeloPrime methods underestimated the expression of relatively long transcripts. Moreover, genes having low expression levels were undetected stochastically regardless of any three methods used. Furthermore, although TeloPrime detected a significantly higher proportion at the transcription start site (TSS), its coverage of the gene body was not uniform. SMARTer is proposed to be yielded for nonspecific genomic DNA amplification. In contrast, the detected splicing event number was highest in the TruSeq. The percent spliced in index (PSI) of the three methods was highly correlated.ConclusionsTruSeq detected transcripts and splicing events better than the other methods and measured expression levels of genes, in addition to splicing events accurately. However, although detected transcripts and splicing events in TeloPrime were fewer, the coverage at TSS was highest. Additionally, SMARTer was better than TeloPrime with regards to the detected number of transcripts and splicing events among the understudied full-length double-stranded cDNA methods. In conclusion, for short-read sequencing, TruSeq has relative advantages for use in transcriptome analysis.

Project description:Objective: RNA extraction and library preparation from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples are crucial pre-analytical steps towards achieving optimal downstream RNA sequencing (RNASeq) results. In this study, we assessed 2 Illumina library preparation methods for RNA-Seq analysis using archived FFPE samples from human cancer indications at 2 independent vendors. Methods: Twenty-five FFPE samples from 5 indications (non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, renal carcinoma, breast cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma) were included, covering a wide range of sample storage durations (3-25 years-old), sample qualities, and specimen types (resection vs core needle biopsy). Each sample was processed independently by both vendors. Total RNA was isolated using the Qiagen miRNeasy FFPE kit followed by library construction using either TruSeq Stranded Total RNA library preparation kit with Ribo-Zero Gold, or TruSeq RNA Access library preparation kit. Libraries were normalized to 20 pM and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq 2500 using V3 chemistry in paired-end mode with a read length of 2 × 50 bp. The data were processed through a standard RNASeq pipeline to produce counts and transcripts per millions for each gene in each sample to compare 2 library kits at 2 different vendors. Results: Our data showed that TruSeq RNA Access libraries yield over 80% exonic reads across different quality samples, indicating higher selectivity of the exome pull down by the capture approach compared to the random priming of the TruSeq Stranded Total kit. The overall QC data for FFPE RNA extraction, library preparation, and sequencing generated by the 2 vendors are comparable, and downstream gene expression quantification results show high concordance as well. With the TruSeq Stranded Total kit, the mean Spearman correlation between vendors was 0.87 and the mean Pearson correlation was 0.76. With the TruSeq RNA Access kit, the mean Spearman correlation between vendors was 0.89 and the mean Pearson correlation was 0.73. Interestingly, examination of the cross-vendor correlations compared to various common QC statistics suggested that library concentration is better correlated with consistency between vendors than is the RNA quantity. Conclusions: Our analyses provide evidence to guide selection of sequencing methods for FFPE samples in which the sample quality may be severely compromised.

Dataset Information

Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data.

Publications

Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets