Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Library comparison between TruSeq, SMARTer and TeloPrime

ABSTRACT: We comparison the performance of three different library for transcriptome analysis.

ORGANISM(S): Homo sapiens

PROVIDER: GSE189019 | GEO | 2021/12/03

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Similar Datasets

Library comparison between TruSeq, SMARTer and TeloPrime

Project description:Library comparison between TruSeq, SMARTer and TeloPrime

| PRJNA781209 | ENA

Comprehensive Illumina Library Comparison

Project description:Comprehensive Illumina Library Comparison

| PRJEB31421 | ENA

Performance comparison of small RNA-Seq library preparation methods for biofluid samples

Project description:Performance comparison of small RNA-Seq library preparation methods for biofluid samples

| PRJNA628969 | ENA

Comparison of library preparation methods

Project description:Comparison of library preparation methods using Cryptococcus neoformans var. grubii

| PRJEB7411 | ENA

Systematic analysis of TruSeq, SMARTer and SMARTer Ultra-Low RNA-seq kits for standard, low and ultra-low quantity samples.

Project description:High-throughput RNA-sequencing has become the gold standard method for whole-transcriptome gene expression analysis, and is widely used in numerous applications to study cell and tissue transcriptomes. It is also being increasingly used in a number of clinical applications, including expression profiling for diagnostics and alternative transcript detection. However, despite its many advantages, RNA sequencing can be challenging in some situations, for instance in cases of low input amounts or degraded RNA samples. Several protocols have been proposed to overcome these challenges, and many are available as commercial kits. In this study, we systematically test three recent commercial technologies for RNA-seq library preparation (TruSeq, SMARTer and SMARTer Ultra-Low) on human biological reference materials, using standard (1 mg), low (100 ng and 10 ng) and ultra-low (<1 ng) input amounts, and for mRNA and total RNA, stranded and unstranded. The results are analyzed using read quality and alignment metrics, gene detection and differential gene expression metrics. Overall, we show that the TruSeq kit performs well with an input amount of 100 ng, while the SMARTer kit shows decreased performance for inputs of 100 and 10 ng, and the SMARTer Ultra-Low kit performs relatively well for input amounts <1 ng. All the results are discussed in detail, and we provide guidelines for biologists for the selection of an RNA-seq library preparation kit.

| S-EPMC6525156 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of fractionation proteomics for local SWATH library building

Project description:For data-independent acquisition by means of sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment ion spectra (SWATH), a reference library of data-dependent acquisition (DDA) runs is typically used to correlate the quantitative data from the fragment ion spectra with peptide identifications. The quality and coverage of such a reference library is therefore essential when processing SWATH data. In general, library sizes can be increased by reducing the impact of DDA precursor selection with replicate runs or fractionation. However, these strategies can affect the match between the library and SWATH measurement, and thus larger library sizes do not necessarily correspond to improved SWATH quantification. Here, three fractionation strategies to increase local library size were compared to standard library building using replicate DDA injection: protein SDS-PAGE fractionation, peptide high-pH RP-HPLC fractionation and MS-acquisition gas phase fractionation. The impact of these libraries on SWATH performance was evaluated in terms of the number of extracted peptides and proteins, the match quality of the peptides and the extraction reproducibility of the transitions. These analyses were conducted using the hydrophilic proteome of differentiating human embryonic stem cells.

2017-07-04 | PXD006190 | Pride

Performance comparison of small RNA-Seq library preparation methods for biofluid samples

Project description:We report performance of six different protocols for small RNAseq library preparation and of a method utilizing sequencing of probes targeting microRNAs (HTG EdgeSeq). Recently, small RNA sequencing (small RNA-seq) has been introduced as a method for quantifying circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) and enabling their global profiling without prior knowledge of target sequences. Despite its great promise, small RNA-seq has not delivered the expected outcomes, particularly due to ligation and PCR bias introduced within the workflow. In this study, we assessed the performance of all existing approaches to the small RNA-seq of miRNAs in plasma samples: original two adapter ligation approach; single adapter ligation with subsequent circularization; polyadenylation; use of randomized adapters; and use of unique molecular identifiers (UMI). Using comprehensive set of metrics, we evaluated each protocol in terms of yield, precision, accuracy, sensitivity, and ability to detect isomiRs. Moreover, we assessed performance of targeted RNA-seq method utilizing hybridization probes across relevant metrics and together with RT-qPCR we used it as a reference for accuracy evaluation. The best results were delivered by targeted RNA-seq outperforming other methods in all relevant parameters. The protocols using randomized adapters or UMIs showed consistent good performance across all of the assessed metrics. In contrast, the polyadenylation approach generated a high percentage of discarded reads and impeded the analysis of isomiRs. The single adapter ligation with subsequent circularization failed to prevent ligation bias and the traditional two adapter ligation approach achieved the worse scores in the majority of tested metrics. To sum, we provide a comprehensive comparison that can serve as a guide for new users interested in analysis of circulating miRNAs and as a reference for further comparative studies.

2020-12-31 | GSE149513 | GEO

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

Comparison of methods to generate a pooled Enterococcus faecalis Tn library from arrayed library plates

Project description:Comparison of methods to generate a pooled Enterococcus faecalis Tn library from arrayed library plates

| PRJNA975209 | ENA

Comparison of dual sgRNA library versus Dolcetto by Perturb-seq

Project description:Comparison of dual sgRNA library versus Dolcetto by Perturb-seq

| PRJNA844359 | ENA