Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

34 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits.

ABSTRACT: High-throughput sequencing has emerged as the favoured method to study microRNA (miRNA) expression, but biases introduced during library preparation have been reported. We recently compared the performance (sensitivity, reliability, titration response and differential expression) of six commercially-available kits on synthetic miRNAs and human RNA, where library preparation was performed by the vendors. We hereby supplement this study with data from two further commonly used kits (NEBNext, NEXTflex) whose manufacturers initially declined to participate. NEXTflex demonstrated the highest sensitivity, which may reflect its use of partially-randomized adapter sequences, but overall performance was lower than the QIAseq and TailorMix kits. NEBNext showed intermediate performance. We reaffirm that biases are kit specific, complicating the comparison of miRNA datasets generated using different kits.

SUBMITTER: Heinicke F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7549702 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

Project description:We compared the performance of two commercial kits (NEBNext and NEXTflex) for miRNA detection sensitivity, reliability, titration response and ability to detect differentially expressed miRNAs at different amounts of synthetic miRNAs. We observed differences in detection sensitivity between the kits, but none were able to detect the full repertoire of expected miRNAs. The reliability within the replicates of all kits was good, while larger differences were observed between the kits, although none could accurately quantify the majority of miRNAs. In a previous publication (https://doi.org/10.1080/15476286.2019.1667741; GEO accession number GSE133719) we accessed the performance of six additional miRNA library preparation kits.

2020-05-31 | GSE141658 | GEO

Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

Project description:We compared the performance of six commercial kits (QIAseq, SMARTer, CATS, CleanTag, srLp, TailorMix) capable of handling <100ng total RNA input for miRNA detection sensitivity, reliability, titration response and ability to detect differentially expressed miRNAs at different amounts of synthetic miRNAs. We observed differences in detection sensitivity between the kits, but none were able to detect the full repertoire of expected miRNAs. The reliability within the replicates of all kits was good, while larger differences were observed between the kits, although none could accurately quantify the majority of miRNAs.

2019-09-27 | GSE133719 | GEO

Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits.

Project description:High-throughput sequencing is increasingly favoured to assay the presence and abundance of microRNAs (miRNAs) in biological samples, even from low RNA amounts, and a number of commercial vendors now offer kits that allow miRNA sequencing from sub-nanogram (ng) inputs. Although biases introduced during library preparation have been documented, the relative performance of current reagent kits has not been investigated in detail. Here, six commercial kits capable of handling <100ng total RNA input were used for library preparation, performed by kit manufactures, on synthetic miRNAs of known quantities and human total RNA samples. We compared the performance of miRNA detection sensitivity, reliability, titration response and the ability to detect differentially expressed miRNAs. In addition, we assessed the use of unique molecular identifiers (UMI) sequence tags in one kit. We observed differences in detection sensitivity and ability to identify differentially expressed miRNAs between the kits, but none were able to detect the full repertoire of synthetic miRNAs. The reliability within the replicates of all kits was good, while larger differences were observed between the kits, although none could accurately quantify the relative levels of the majority of miRNAs. UMI tags, at least within the input ranges tested, offered little advantage to improve data utility. In conclusion, biases in miRNA abundance are heavily influenced by the kit used for library preparation, suggesting that comparisons of datasets prepared by different procedures should be made with caution. This article is intended to assist researchers select the most appropriate kit for their experimental conditions.

| S-EPMC6948978 | biostudies-literature

Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

Project description:Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

| PRJNA552326 | ENA

An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

Project description:An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits

| PRJNA594317 | ENA

Evaluation of commercially available small RNASeq library preparation kits using low input RNA.

Project description:BackgroundEvolving interest in comprehensively profiling the full range of small RNAs present in small tissue biopsies and in circulating biofluids, and how the profile differs with disease, has launched small RNA sequencing (RNASeq) into more frequent use. However, known biases associated with small RNASeq, compounded by low RNA inputs, have been both a significant concern and a hurdle to widespread adoption. As RNASeq is becoming a viable choice for the discovery of small RNAs in low input samples and more labs are employing it, there should be benchmark datasets to test and evaluate the performance of new sequencing protocols and operators. In a recent publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Pine et al., 2018, the investigators used a commercially available set of three tissues and tested performance across labs and platforms.ResultsIn this paper, we further tested the performance of low RNA input in three commonly used and commercially available RNASeq library preparation kits; NEB Next, NEXTFlex, and TruSeq small RNA library preparation. We evaluated the performance of the kits at two different sites, using three different tissues (brain, liver, and placenta) with high (1 μg) and low RNA (10 ng) input from tissue samples, or 5.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.2 ml starting volumes of plasma. As there has been a lack of robust validation platforms for differentially expressed miRNAs, we also compared low input RNASeq data with their expression profiles on three different platforms (Abcam Fireplex, HTG EdgeSeq, and Qiagen miRNome).ConclusionsThe concordance of RNASeq results on these three platforms was dependent on the RNA expression level; the higher the expression, the better the reproducibility. The results provide an extensive analysis of small RNASeq kit performance using low RNA input, and replication of these data on three downstream technologies.

| S-EPMC5936030 | biostudies-literature

Evaluation of commercially available RNA amplification kits for RNA sequencing using very low input amounts of total RNA.

Project description:This article includes supplemental data. Please visit http://www.fasebj.org to obtain this information.Multiple recent publications on RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) have demonstrated the power of next-generation sequencing technologies in whole-transcriptome analysis. Vendor-specific protocols used for RNA library construction often require at least 100 ng total RNA. However, under certain conditions, much less RNA is available for library construction. In these cases, effective transcriptome profiling requires amplification of subnanogram amounts of RNA. Several commercial RNA amplification kits are available for amplification prior to library construction for next-generation sequencing, but these kits have not been comprehensively field evaluated for accuracy and performance of RNA-seq for picogram amounts of RNA. To address this, 4 types of amplification kits were tested with 3 different concentrations, from 5 ng to 50 pg, of a commercially available RNA. Kits were tested at multiple sites to assess reproducibility and ease of use. The human total reference RNA used was spiked with a control pool of RNA molecules in order to further evaluate quantitative recovery of input material. Additional control data sets were generated from libraries constructed following polyA selection or ribosomal depletion using established kits and protocols. cDNA was collected from the different sites, and libraries were synthesized at a single site using established protocols. Sequencing runs were carried out on the Illumina platform. Numerous metrics were compared among the kits and dilutions used. Overall, no single kit appeared to meet all the challenges of small input material. However, it is encouraging that excellent data can be recovered with even the 50 pg input total RNA.

| S-EPMC4310221 | biostudies-literature

Microfluidic platform for next-generation sequencing library preparation with low-input samples

Project description:Advances in Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) have made available a wealth of information that had previously been inaccessible to researchers and clinicians. NGS has been applied to understand genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic changes and gained traction as a significant tool capable of accelerating diagnosis, prognosis, and biomarker discovery. However, these NGS assays have yet to be practical methods for patient stratification or diagnosis because of the gap between the tiny quantities of biomaterials provided by a clinical sample and the large DNA input required by most of these assays. Current library preparation methodologies typically require large input amounts of DNA and a long and complicated manual process. Here we present a microfluidic reactor system for NGS library preparation, capable of reducing the number of pipetting steps significantly, automating much of the process, while supporting extremely low DNA input requirement (10 pg per library). This largely automated technology will allow for low-input preparations of 8 libraries simultaneously while reducing batch to batch variation and operator hands-on time.

2020-01-02 | GSE132786 | GEO

Microfluidic Platform for Next-Generation Sequencing Library Preparation with Low-Input Samples.

Project description:Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) have made available a wealth of information that had previously been inaccessible to researchers and clinicians. NGS has been applied to understand genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenomic changes and gained traction as a significant tool capable of accelerating diagnosis, prognosis, and biomarker discovery. However, these NGS assays have yet to be practical methods for patient stratification or diagnosis because of the gap between the tiny quantities of biomaterials provided by a clinical sample and the large DNA input required by most of these assays. Current library preparation methodologies typically require large input amounts of DNA and a long and complicated manual process. Here, we present a microfluidic droplet-based system for NGS library preparation, capable of reducing the number of pipetting steps significantly, reducing reagent consumption by 10×, and automating much of the process, while supporting an extremely low DNA input requirement (10 pg per library). This semiautomated technology will allow for low-input preparations of 8 libraries simultaneously while reducing batch-to-batch variation and operator hands-on time.

| S-EPMC7002211 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of the sequencing bias of currently available library preparation kits for Illumina sequencing of bacterial genomes and metagenomes.

Project description:In bacterial genome and metagenome sequencing, Illumina sequencers are most frequently used due to their high throughput capacity, and multiple library preparation kits have been developed for Illumina platforms. Here, we systematically analysed and compared the sequencing bias generated by currently available library preparation kits for Illumina sequencing. Our analyses revealed that a strong sequencing bias is introduced in low-GC regions by the Nextera XT kit. The level of bias introduced is dependent on the level of GC content; stronger bias is generated as the GC content decreases. Other analysed kits did not introduce this strong sequencing bias. The GC content-associated sequencing bias introduced by Nextera XT was more remarkable in metagenome sequencing of a mock bacterial community and seriously affected estimation of the relative abundance of low-GC species. The results of our analyses highlight the importance of selecting proper library preparation kits according to the purposes and targets of sequencing, particularly in metagenome sequencing, where a wide range of microbial species with various degrees of GC content is present. Our data also indicate that special attention should be paid to which library preparation kit was used when analysing and interpreting publicly available metagenomic data.

| S-EPMC6796507 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data