Dataset Information

Impact of Sequencing Depth and Library Preparation on Toxicological Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data in a "Three-Sample" Scenario.

ABSTRACT: While RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) has emerged as a standard approach in toxicogenomics, its full potential in gaining underlying toxicological mechanisms is still not clear when only three biological replicates are used. This "three-sample" study design is common in toxicological research, particularly in animal studies during preclinical drug development. Sequencing depth (the total number of reads in an experiment) and library preparation are critical to the resolution and integrity of RNA-seq data and biological interpretation. We used aflatoxin b1 (AFB1), a model toxicant, to investigate the effect of sequencing depth and library preparation in RNA-seq on toxicological interpretation in the "three-sample" scenario. We also compared different gene profiling platforms (RNA-seq, TempO-seq, microarray, and qPCR) using identical liver samples. Well-established mechanisms of AFB1 toxicity served as ground truth for our comparative analyses. We found that a minimum of 20 million reads was sufficient to elicit key toxicity functions and pathways underlying AFB1-induced liver toxicity using three replicates and that identification of differentially expressed genes was positively associated with sequencing depth to a certain extent. Further, our results showed that RNA-seq revealed toxicological insights from pathway enrichment with overall higher statistical power and overlap ratio, compared with TempO-seq and microarray. Moreover, library preparation using the same methods was important to reproducing the toxicological interpretation.

SUBMITTER: Li D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7887111 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Sequencing Depth and Library Preparation on Toxicological Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data in a "Three-Sample" Scenario.

Li Dongying D Gong Binsheng B Xu Joshua J Ning Baitang B Tong Weida W

Chemical research in toxicology 20201223 2

While RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) has emerged as a standard approach in toxicogenomics, its full potential in gaining underlying toxicological mechanisms is still not clear when only three biological replicates are used. This "three-sample" study design is common in toxicological research, particularly in animal studies during preclinical drug development. Sequencing depth (the total number of reads in an experiment) and library preparation are critical to the resolution and integrity of RNA-seq da ...[more]

PMID: 33354967

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Impact of Sequencing Depth and Library Preparation on Toxicological Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data in a "Three-Sample" Scenario.

Publications

Impact of Sequencing Depth and Library Preparation on Toxicological Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data in a "Three-Sample" Scenario.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets