Dataset Information

Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The increasing number of transcriptomic datasets has allowed for meta-analyses, which can be valuable due to their increased statistical power. However, meta-analyses can be confounded by so-called "batch effects," where technical variation across different batches of RNA-seq experiments can clearly produce spurious signals of differential expression and reduce our power to detect true differences. While batch effects can sometimes be accounted for, albeit with caveats, a better strategy is to understand their sources to better avoid them. In this study, we examined the effects of RNA isolation method as a possible source of batch effects in RNA-seq design. RESULTS:Based on the different chemistries of "classic" hot phenol extraction of RNA compared to common commercial RNA isolation kits, we hypothesized that specific mRNAs may be preferentially extracted depending upon method, which could masquerade as differential expression in downstream RNA-seq analyses. We tested this hypothesis using the Saccharomyces cerevisiae heat shock response as a well-validated environmental response. Comparing technical replicates that only differed in RNA isolation method, we found over one thousand transcripts that appeared "differentially" expressed when comparing hot phenol extraction with the two kits. Strikingly, transcripts with higher abundance in the phenol-extracted samples were enriched for membrane proteins, suggesting that indeed the chemistry of hot phenol extraction better solubilizes those species of mRNA. CONCLUSIONS:Within a self-contained experimental batch (e.g. control versus treatment), the method of RNA isolation had little effect on the ability to identify differentially expressed transcripts. However, we suggest that researchers performing meta-analyses across different experimental batches strongly consider the RNA isolation methods for each experiment.

SUBMITTER: Scholes AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7082934 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses.

Scholes Amanda N AN Lewis Jeffrey A JA

BMC genomics 20200320 1

<h4>Background</h4>The increasing number of transcriptomic datasets has allowed for meta-analyses, which can be valuable due to their increased statistical power. However, meta-analyses can be confounded by so-called "batch effects," where technical variation across different batches of RNA-seq experiments can clearly produce spurious signals of differential expression and reduce our power to detect true differences. While batch effects can sometimes be accounted for, albeit with caveats, a bett ...[more]

PMID: 32197587

Similar Datasets

Project description:A generally accepted approach to the analysis of RNA-Seq read count data does not yet exist. We sequenced the mRNA of 726 individuals from the Drosophila Genetic Reference Panel in order to quantify differences in gene expression among single flies. One of our experimental goals was to identify the optimal analysis approach for the detection of differential gene expression among the factors we varied in the experiment: genotype, environment, sex, and their interactions. Here we evaluate three different filtering strategies, eight normalization methods, and two statistical approaches using our data set. We assessed differential gene expression among factors and performed a statistical power analysis using the eight biological replicates per genotype, environment, and sex in our data set.We found that the most critical considerations for the analysis of RNA-Seq read count data were the normalization method, underlying data distribution assumption, and numbers of biological replicates, an observation consistent with previous RNA-Seq and microarray analysis comparisons. Some common normalization methods, such as Total Count, Quantile, and RPKM normalization, did not align the data across samples. Furthermore, analyses using the Median, Quantile, and Trimmed Mean of M-values normalization methods were sensitive to the removal of low-expressed genes from the data set. Although it is robust in many types of analysis, the normal data distribution assumption produced results vastly different than the negative binomial distribution. In addition, at least three biological replicates per condition were required in order to have sufficient statistical power to detect expression differences among the three-way interaction of genotype, environment, and sex.The best analysis approach to our data was to normalize the read counts using the DESeq method and apply a generalized linear model assuming a negative binomial distribution using either edgeR or DESeq software. Genes having very low read counts were removed after normalizing the data and fitting it to the negative binomial distribution. We describe the results of this evaluation and include recommended analysis strategies for RNA-Seq read count data.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses.

Publications

Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets