Dataset Information

A comparison between whole transcript and 3' RNA sequencing methods using Kapa and Lexogen library preparation methods.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:3' RNA sequencing provides an alternative to whole transcript analysis. However, we do not know a priori the relative advantage of each method. Thus, a comprehensive comparison between the whole transcript and the 3' method is needed to determine their relative merits. To this end, we used two commercially available library preparation kits, the KAPA Stranded mRNA-Seq kit (traditional method) and the Lexogen QuantSeq 3' mRNA-Seq kit (3' method), to prepare libraries from mouse liver RNA. We then sequenced and analyzed the libraries to determine the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches. RESULTS:We found that the traditional whole transcript method and the 3' RNA-Seq method had similar levels of reproducibility. As expected, the whole transcript method assigned more reads to longer transcripts, while the 3' method assigned roughly equal numbers of reads to transcripts regardless of their lengths. We found that the 3' RNA-Seq method detected more short transcripts than the whole transcript method. With regard to differential expression analysis, we found that the whole transcript method detected more differentially expressed genes, regardless of the level of sequencing depth. CONCLUSIONS:The 3' RNA-Seq method was better able to detect short transcripts, while the whole transcript RNA-Seq was able to detect more differentially expressed genes. Thus, both approaches have relative advantages and should be selected based on the goals of the experiment.

SUBMITTER: Ma F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6323698 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison between whole transcript and 3' RNA sequencing methods using Kapa and Lexogen library preparation methods.

Ma Feiyang F Fuqua Brie K BK Hasin Yehudit Y Yukhtman Clara C Vulpe Chris D CD Lusis Aldons J AJ Pellegrini Matteo M

BMC genomics 20190107 1

<h4>Background</h4>3' RNA sequencing provides an alternative to whole transcript analysis. However, we do not know a priori the relative advantage of each method. Thus, a comprehensive comparison between the whole transcript and the 3' method is needed to determine their relative merits. To this end, we used two commercially available library preparation kits, the KAPA Stranded mRNA-Seq kit (traditional method) and the Lexogen QuantSeq 3' mRNA-Seq kit (3' method), to prepare libraries from mouse ...[more]

PMID: 30616562

Similar Datasets

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.

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 between whole transcript and 3' RNA sequencing methods using Kapa and Lexogen library preparation methods.

Publications

A comparison between whole transcript and 3' RNA sequencing methods using Kapa and Lexogen library preparation methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets