Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A comparison of RNA extraction and sequencing protocols for detection of small RNAs in plasma

ABSTRACT: We compared 3 small RNA library prep kits (CleanTag, NEXTflex, QIAseq) and two RNA extraction methods (miRNeasy and MagnaZol) on plasma. We report that library preparation has a significant effect upon the miRNA profile detected, with QIAseq libraries exhibiting the least sequencing bias of the three library kits. RNA extraction methods also contribute, to a lesser extent, to the miRNA profile detected, with MagnaZol RNA extraction increasing the percentage of reads mapping to miRNAs and the number of individual miRNAs detected.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

PROVIDER: GSE118125 | GEO | 2019/05/21

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Similar Datasets

Examination and comparison of the RNA extraction methods using mouse serum

Project description:Serum miRNAs are considered useful as non-invasive biomarkers for various diseases, but the optimal method for extracting RNA from serum is currently unknown. In this study, several RNA extraction kits were used to determine which kit is the optimal method. RNA was extracted from the serum of 8-week-old C57BL/6NJcl male mice according to the protocol of each RNA extraction kit. The yield of extracted RNA samples was calculated and electrophoretic patterns were evaluated by Agilent bioanalyzer. Expression patterns of the extracted RNA samples were confirmed by Agilent mouse miRNA microarray. The results showed significant differences in RNA yields in the miRNeasy serum/plasma advanced kit, and mirVana™ PARIS™ RNA and Native Protein Purification Kit compared to almost all other samples. Furthermore, two peaks were identified in the miRNeasy serum/plasma advanced kit using small RNA kit of Agilent bioanalyzer, one at 20-40 nucleotides (nt) and the other around 40-100 nt whereas the other reagents had a single peak. In addition, a high correlation was observed between the two RNA extraction kits in microarray. These results suggest that the above two kits are suitable for miRNA extraction from mouse serum.

2024-01-01 | GSE246437 | GEO

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

Optimized Method for Robust Transcriptome Profiling of Minute Tissues Using Laser Capture Microdissection and Low-Input RNA-Seq

Project description:Purpose: To determine the optimal RNA extraction and library generation protocols for mouse hippocampal tissue acquired by laser capture microdissection (LCM). Methods: Hippocampal subregion CA2 was captured from eight micron fresh frozen brain sections from AMIGO2 EGFP mice. Total RNA was extracted using the PicoPure (LCM standard) and QIAGEN micro RNeasy RNA extraction kits. RNA quantity and quality was assessed using a Bioanalzyer. Resulting RNA was used to generate cDNA libraries using NuGEN or SMARTer low input RNA-Seq library kits. We compared the effects of RNA quality and library generation approach to determine the methods that detected the greatest number of genes/exons with even coverage using minimal rounds of PCR. Results: We determined that the QIAGEN RNA extraction kit resulted in far superior RNA compared to the Picopure RNA extraction kit. We also found the NuGEN library generation kit that depletes ribosomal RNA towards the end of the protocol, led to higher cDNA library yields that required fewer rounds of PCR while providing even gene coverage and detection.

2017-06-02 | GSE95257 | GEO

Nassar2022 - Microbome nucleic acid extraction kit NER model

Project description:Microbiome nucleic acid extraction kit model is a Named Entity Recognition (NER) model that identifies and annotates the name of the kits used in extracting microbiome nucleic acids in texts. This is the final model version used to annotate metagenomics publications in Europe PMC and enrich metagenomics studies in MGnify with kits metadata from literature. For more information, please refer to the following blogs: http://blog.europepmc.org/2020/11/europe-pmc-publications-metagenomics-annotations.html https://www.ebi.ac.uk/about/news/service-news/enriched-metadata-fields-mgnify-based-text-mining-associated-publications

2022-02-21 | MODEL2202170007 | BioModels

Comparison of DNA extraction kits for MiSeq sequencing

Project description:Comparison of DNA extraction kits for MiSeq sequencing

| PRJEB10820 | ENA

Circulating MicroRNAs and Treatment Response in Childhood Asthma

Project description:Total RNA was isolated from serum samples by the Qiagen miRNeasy Serum/Plasma extraction kit and QIAcube automation. All samples were quantified using the Nanodrop spectrophotometer prior to plating. Small RNA-seq libraries were prepared using the Norgen Biotek Small RNA Library Prep Kit and then sequenced on the Illumina NextSeq 500 platform at 51bp single end reads. ExceRpt was employed to assess the read quality and annotate miRNAs. The read count was log transformed and normalized by quantile normalization.

2020-07-08 | GSE134897 | GEO

Performance of a highly scalable and extraction-free RNA-seq method

Project description:RNA-seq workflows have become progressively more efficient over time however, RNA extraction still remains a significant bottleneck. For small numbers of sample, highly efficient RNA extraction is simple to perform but becomes costly and laborious at the scale of hundreds of samples. Our prior work has demonstrated that qPCR can be accurately performed using bulk cells samples lysate instead of RNA extraction. We combined this method with the recently developed simple method for rapid RNA-seq library prep; Smart-3SEQ (Foley et al., 2019) and hypothesized that bulk RNA-seq can be performed in a multi-well plate format, and at low cost by performing RNA-seq library prep cDNA synthesis using in-lysate RNA followed by Smart-3SEQ. The result shows success of our approach in various levels: 1) all quality control measures were achieved, 2) Gene expression profiles, gene differential expression and the response patterns reported by in-lysate and purified RNA library highly correlate with each other, and 3) in-lysate RNA-seq library prep performed similar to the gold standard used here (Illumina Truseq) for DEG calling.

2021-01-22 | GSE164650 | GEO

Extraction of Entamoeba histolytica membrane proteins using three extraction methods

Project description:Entamoeba histolytica membrane proteins are important players in the parasite’s pathogenicity. However, most of the proteins have not been identified. This study reports the membrane proteins extracted using three extractions methods: two commercial kits (ProteoExtract® from Calbiochem and ProteoPrep® from Sigma), and a conventional laboratory method. The resulting membrane fractions (MF) and cytosolic fractions (CF)were analysed using LC-ESI-MS/MS. The proteins identified in at least two out of three biological replicates revealed a total of 490, 492, and 587 MF proteins extracted using the ProteoExtract® kit, ProteoPrep® kit and conventional method, respectively. Meanwhile, 487, 611 and 343 proteins were identified in the CF extracted using the ProteoExtract® kit, ProteoPrep® kit and conventional method, respectively. Analysis of the identified MF and CF proteins extracted by the respective extraction kits suggests that the ProteoPrep® extraction kit was the most selective in separating MF and CF among the three extraction methods.

2018-10-16 | PXD010171 | Pride

Comparison of EVs isolation methods for miRNAs sequencing

Project description:Background & aims: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) encapsulated in EVs are potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. However, discrepancies on miRNA patterns and their validation are still frequent due to differences in sample origin, EVs isolation, miRNA extraction and sequencing methods. Selecting appropriate EVs isolation methods is therefore a critical step for miRNA-based biomarker discovery. The aim of the present study is to find the most suitable EVs isolation method for miRNAs sequencing adequate for clinical application. Material & Methods EVs were isolated by Size Exclusion Chromatography (SEC), iodixanol gradients (GRAD) and the combination of both (SEC+GRAD), using the same plasma sample, in triplicate isolation assays. Isolated EVs were characterized and RNA was extracted. Three different protocols for miRNA library preparation were compared (NEBNext, NEXTFlex and SMARTer smRNA-seq) and miRNAs encapsulated on EVs were sequenced using NextSeq 500 system (Illumina). Finally, the yield, abundance and diversity of miRNAs using the three different EVs isolation protocols were analyzed and compared between them. Results The majority of lipoproteins, total cholesterol and plasma proteins were removed from the EVs-containing fractions by using SEC, GRAD, and SEC+GRAD. SEC method recovered a larger amount of EVs followed by GRAD and SEC+GRAD, while GRAD and SEC+GRAD yielded the purest vesicles. NEBNext was the library preparation kit that showed the highest reproducibility among replicas, higher number of reads corresponding to miRNAs and more different miRNAs, followed by NEXTFlex and SMARTer smRNA-seq. GRAD method showed the highest reproducibility among replicas, a higher number of reads corresponding to miRNAs and more different miRNAs, followed by SEC and SEC+GRAD methods. Conclusions These results render the GRAD method to isolate EVs as one of the most appropriate to detect miRNAs from Evs.

2023-04-26 | GSE223838 | GEO

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