Dataset Information

A comparison of sperm RNA-seq methods.

ABSTRACT: A significant challenge to the effective application of RNA-seq to the complete transcript analysis of low quantity and/or degraded samples is the amplification of minimal input RNA to enable sequencing library construction. Several strategies have been commercialized in order to facilitate this goal. However, each strategy has its own specific protocols and methodology, and each may introduce unique bias and in some cases show specific preference for a collection of sequences. Our wider investigation of human spermatozoal RNAs was able to reveal their complexity despite being generally characterized by low quantity and high fragmentation. In this study, the following four commercially available RNA-seq amplification and library protocols for the preparation of low quantity/highly fragmented samples, SMARTer™ Ultra Low RNA (SU) for Illumina® Sequencing, SeqPlex RNA Amplification (SP), Ovation® RNA-Seq System V2 (OR), and Ovation® RNA-Seq Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded System (FFPES) were assessed using human sperm RNAs. Further investigation analyzed the effects on the end results of two different library preparation methods, Encore NGS Multiplex System I (Enc) and Ovation Ultralow Library Systems (UL), that appeared best suited to this type of RNA, along with other potential confounding factors such as FFPE preservation. Our results indicate that for each library preparation protocol, the differences in the initial amount of input RNA and choice of RNA purification step do not generate marked differences in terms of RNA profiling. However, substantial disparity is introduced by individual amplification methods prior to library construction. These significant differences may be caused by the different priming methods or amplification strategies used in each of the four different protocols examined. The observation of intra-sample variation introduced by the choice of protocol highlights the role that external factors play in planning and subsequent reliable interpretation of results of any RNA-seq experiment.

SUBMITTER: Mao S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4435722 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of sperm RNA-seq methods.

Mao Shihong S Sendler Edward E Goodrich Robert J RJ Hauser Russ R Krawetz Stephen A SA

Systems biology in reproductive medicine 20140731 5

A significant challenge to the effective application of RNA-seq to the complete transcript analysis of low quantity and/or degraded samples is the amplification of minimal input RNA to enable sequencing library construction. Several strategies have been commercialized in order to facilitate this goal. However, each strategy has its own specific protocols and methodology, and each may introduce unique bias and in some cases show specific preference for a collection of sequences. Our wider investi ...[more]

PMID: 25077492

Similar Datasets

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.

Dataset Information

A comparison of sperm RNA-seq methods.

Publications

A comparison of sperm RNA-seq methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets