Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 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: 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.

ORGANISM(S): synthetic construct Homo sapiens

PROVIDER: GSE141658 | GEO | 2020/05/31

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Similar Datasets

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

Cross-Site Comparison of Ribosomal Depletion Kits for Illumina RNAseq Library Construction

Project description:In a cross-site study we evaluated the performance of ribosomal RNA removal kits from Illumina, Takara/Clontech, Kapa Biosystems, Lexogen, New England Biolabs and Qiagen on intact and degraded RNA samples. We found that all of the kits were capable of performing significant ribosomal depletion, though there were differences in their ease of use. All kits were able to remove ribosomal RNA to below 20% with intact RNA and identify ~14,000 protein coding genes from the Universal Human Reference RNA sample at >1FPKM. Analysis of differentially detected genes among kits suggested that transcript length may be a key factor in library production efficiency. These results provide a roadmap for labs on the strengths of each of these methods and how best to utilize them.

2018-02-01 | GSE100127 | GEO

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

Project description: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.

2019-05-21 | GSE118125 | GEO

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

A Comparative Analysis of Library Prep Approaches for Sequencing Low Input Translatome Samples

Project description:We evaluated the performance of 5 library prep protocols by using total mRNA and IP RNA of mouse liver,we found all the 5 library preparation kits detect more enrichment effects than depletion effect. The profiles being generated by SMARTer kit is different than all other kits.

2017-10-30 | GSE104213 | GEO

Comprehensive analysis of RNA-seq kits for standard, low and ultra-low quantity samples

Project description:High-throughput RNA-sequencing has now become the gold standard method for whole-transcriptome gene expression analysis. It is widely used in a number of applications studying various transcriptomes of cells and tissues. It is also being increasingly considered for a number of clinical applications, including expression profiling for diagnostics or alternative transcripts detection. However, RNA sequencing can be challenging in some situations, for instance due to low input quantities or degraded RNA samples. Several protocols have been proposed to overcome some of these challenges, and many are available as commercial kits. Here we perform a comprehensive testing of three recent commercial technologies for RNA-seq library preparation (Truseq, Smarter and Smarter Ultra-Low) on human reference tissue preparations, for standard (1ug), low (100 and 10 ng) and ultra-low (< 1 ng) input quantities, and for mRNA and total RNA, stranded or unstranded. We analyze the results using read quality and alignments metrics, gene detection and differential gene expression metrics. Overall, we show that the Truseq kit performs well at 100 ng input quantity, while the Smarter kit shows degraded performances for 100 and 10 ng input quantities, and that the Smarter Ultra-Low kit performs quite well for input quantities < 1 ng. All the results are discussed in details, and we provide guidelines for the selection of a RNA-seq library preparation kits by biologists.

2019-05-10 | GSE124198 | GEO

RNA-seq sample preparation kits strongly affect transcriptome profiles of a gas-fermenting bacterium

Project description:Transcriptome analysis via RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a standard technique employed across a variety of biological fields of study. This rapid adoption of the RNA-seq approach has been mediated, in part, by the development of various commercial RNA-seq library preparation kits compatible with common next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. Generally, the essential steps of library preparation such as rRNA depletion and first-strand cDNA synthesis are tailored to a certain group of organisms (e.g. eukaryotes versus prokaryotes) or genomic GC content. Therefore, selection of appropriate commercial products is of crucial importance to capture the transcriptome of interest as closely to the native state as possible without introduction of technical bias. However, researchers rarely have the resources and time to test various commercial RNA-seq kits for their samples. In this work, we report a side-by-side comparison of RNA-seq data from the same Clostridium autoethanogenum input samples obtained using three commercial rRNA removal and strand-specific library construction products by NuGEN Technologies, Qiagen, and Zymo Research, and compare their performance with published data. While all three vendors advertise their products as suitable for prokaryotes, we found significant differences in their performance in terms of rRNA removal, strand-specificity, and, most importantly, transcript abundance distribution profiles. Notably, RNA-seq data obtained with Qiagen products were most similar to published data and delivered the best results in terms of library strandedness and transcript abundance distribution range. Our results highlight the importance of finding appropriate organism-specific workflows and library preparation products for RNA-seq studies.

2022-07-20 | GSE200959 | GEO

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 RNA methods for plant samples

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

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

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