Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens synthetic RNA
PROVIDER: GSE133719 | GEO | 2019/09/27
REPOSITORIES: GEO
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
| PRJNA552326 | ENA
Project description:An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
| PRJNA594317 | ENA
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
Project description:Candida auris is an emerging pathogen with resistance to many commonly used antifungal agents. Infections with C. auris require rapid and reliable detection methods to initiate successful medical treatment and contain hospital outbreaks. Conventional identification methods are prone to errors and can lead to misidentifications. PCR-based assays, in turn, can provide reliable results with low turnaround times. However, only limited data are available on the performance of commercially available assays for C. auris detection. In the present study, the two commercially available PCR assays AurisID (OLM, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK) and Fungiplex Candida Auris RUO Real-Time PCR (Bruker, Bremen, Germany) were challenged with 29 C. auris isolates from all five clades and eight other Candida species as controls. AurisID reliably detected C. auris with a limit of detection (LoD) of 1 genome copies/reaction. However, false positive results were obtained with high DNA amounts of the closely related species C. haemulonii, C. duobushaemulonii and C. pseudohaemulonii. The Fungiplex Candida Auris RUO Real-Time PCR kit detected C. auris with an LoD of 9 copies/reaction. No false positive results were obtained with this assay. In addition, C. auris could also be detected in human blood samples spiked with pure fungal cultures by both kits. In summary, both kits could detect C. auris-DNA at low DNA concentrations but differed slightly in their limits of detection and specificity.
| S-EPMC7926799 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:Plant small RNAs are a diverse and complex set of molecules, ranging in length from 21 to 24 nt, involved in a wide range of essential biological processes. Nowadays, high-throughput sequencing is the most commonly used method for the discovery and quantification of small RNAs. However, it is known that several biases can occur during the preparation of small RNA libraries, especially using low input RNA. We used two types of plant biological samples to evaluate the performance of seven commercially available methods for small RNA library construction, using different RNA input amounts. We show that when working with plant material, library construction methods have differing capabilities to capture small RNAs, and that different library construction methods provide better results when applied to the detection of microRNAs, phased small RNAs, or tRNA-derived fragments.
2021-08-01 | GSE156973 | GEO
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7549702 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Describing and evaluating miRNA inventories with Next Generation Sequencing is a goal of scientists from a wide range of fields. It requires high purity, high quality, and high yield RNA extractions that do not only contain abundant ribosomal RNAs but are also enriched in miRNAs. Here we compare 6 disparate and commercially available totalRNA extraction kits for their suitability for miRNA-preparations from Gyrodactylus salaris, an important but small (500 ?m in length) monogenean pathogen of Norwegian Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). FINDINGS: We evaluated 1 salt precipitation method (MasterPure™ Complete RNA Purification Kit, Epicentre), 2 Phenol based extraction methods (mirVana Kit, Ambion, and Trizol Plus Kit, Invitrogen), 1 paramagnetic bead extraction method (RNA Tissue kit, GeneMole) and 2 purification methods based on spin column chromatography using a proprietary resin as separation matrix (Phenol-free Total RNA Purification Kit, Amresco, and ZR MicroPrep Kit, Zymo Research). The quality of the extractions from 1, 10 and 100 individuals, respectively, was assessed in terms of totalRNA yield, RNA integrity, and smallRNA and miRNA yield. The 6 RNA extraction methods yielded considerably different total RNA extracts, with striking differences in low molecular weight RNA yield. The Phenol-free Total RNA Purification Kit (Amresco) showed the highest totalRNA yield, but the best miRNA/totalRNA ratio was obtained with the ZR MicroPrep Kit (Zymo Research). It was not possible to extract electrophoretically detectable miRNAs from Gyrodactylus salaris with the RNA Tissue Kit (GeneMole) or the Trizol Plus Kit (Invitrogen). CONCLUSIONS: We present an optimized extraction protocol for single and small numbers of Gyrodactylus salaris from infected Atlantic salmon that delivers a totalRNA yield suitable for downstream next generation sequencing analyses of miRNA. Two of the six tested totalRNA kits/methods were not suitable for the extraction of miRNAs from Gyrodactylus salaris.
| S-EPMC3146854 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) has great potential for non-invasive diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring treatment of disease. However, a sensitive and specific whole-genome sequencing (WGS) method is required to identify novel genetic variations (i.e., SNVs, CNVs and INDELS) on ccfDNA that can be used as clinical biomarkers. In this article, five WGS methods were compared: ThruPLEX Plasma-seq, QIAseq cfDNA All-in-One, NEXTFLEX Cell Free DNA-seq, Accel-NGS 2 S PCR FREE DNA and Accel-NGS 2 S PLUS DNA. The Accel PCR-free kit did not produce enough material for sequencing. The other kits had significant common number of SNVs, INDELs and CNVs and showed similar results for SNVs and CNVs. The detection of variants and genomic signatures depends more upon the type of plasma sample rather than the WGS method used. Accel detected several variants not observed by the other kits. ThruPLEX seemed to identify more low-abundant SNVs and SNV signatures were similar to signatures observed with the QIAseq kit. Accel and NEXTFLEX had similar CNV and SNV signatures. These results demonstrate the importance of establishing a standardized workflow for identifying non-invasive candidate biomarkers. Moreover, the combination of variants discovered in ccfDNA using WGS has the potential to identify enrichment pathways, while the analysis of signatures could identify new subgroups of patients.
| S-EPMC7148341 | biostudies-literature