Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison of DNA extraction kits for MiSeq sequencing

ABSTRACT: Comparison of DNA extraction kits for MiSeq sequencing

PROVIDER: PRJEB10820 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	ERR1014120_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR1014120_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR1014130_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR1014130_2.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	ERR1014121_1.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 36

Similar Datasets

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

Comparison of six commercial kits to extract bacterial chromosome and plasmid DNA for MiSeq sequencing.

Project description:We compared commercial kits for extraction of genomic DNA from the Gram-negative bacterium Klebsiella pneumoniae for subsequent Miseq sequencing. Purification of DNA was based on matrix binding (silica or anion exchange resin) or differential precipitation (salting out), respectively. The choice of extraction kit had little effect on sequencing quality and coverage across drastically different replicons, except for an apparent depletion of small plasmids (<5?kb) during precipitation-based extractions. Sequencing coverage provided copy-number estimates for small plasmids that were consistently higher than those from quantitative real-time PCR.

| S-EPMC4911584 | biostudies-literature

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

Comparison of Agilent SureSelect Focussed Exome and TruSight One Mendeliome sequencing kits using NA12878 trio DNA

Project description:A technical comparison of Agilent SureSelect Focussed Exome and TruSight One Mendeliome sequencing kits, by triplicate sequencing of the cell line DNA of NA12878, NA12891, NA12892 and NIST RM8395

2019-09-20 | E-MTAB-8349 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Performance comparison of three DNA extraction kits on human whole-exome data from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded normal and tumor samples

Project description:We generated 42 human whole-exome sequencing data sets from fresh-frozen (FF) and FFPE samples. These samples include normal and tumor tissues from two different organs (liver and colon), that we extracted with three different FFPE extraction kits (QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue kit and GeneRead DNA FFPE kit from Qiagen, Maxwell\textsuperscript{TM} RSC DNA FFPE Kit from Promega). Variant calling analysis shows a very high rate of concordance between matched FF / FFPE pairs and equivalent performance for the three kits we analyzed. We find a significant variation in the difference of total number of variants called between FF and FFPE samples for the three different FFPE DNA extraction kits. Coverage analysis shows that FFPE samples have less good indicators than FF samples, yet the coverage quality remains above accepted thresholds. We detect limited but significant variations in coverage indicator values between the three FFPE extraction kits. Globally, the GeneRead and QIAamp kits have better variant calling and coverage indicators than the Maxwell kit on the samples used in this study, although this kit performs better on some indicators and has advantages in terms of practical usage. Taken together, our results confirm the potential of FFPE samples analysis for clinical genomic studies, but also indicate that the choice of a FFPE DNA extraction kit should be done with careful testing and analysis beforehand in order to maximize the accuracy of the results.

| EGAS00001002631 | EGA

DNA extraction methods comparison

Project description:The impact of the DNA extraction methods on the gut bacterial and fungal microbiota community recovery

| PRJEB29363 | ENA

DNA Extraction

Project description:DNA extraction method targeted loci environmental

| PRJNA315949 | ENA

Comparison of DNA extraction methods for non-marine molluscs: is modified CTAB DNA extraction method more efficient than DNA extraction kits?

Project description:Isolation of high molecular weight DNA from gastropod molluscs and its subsequent PCR amplification is considered difficult due to excessive mucopolysaccharides secretion which co-precipitate with DNA and obstruct successful amplification. In an attempt to address this issue, we describe a modified CTAB DNA extraction method that proved to work significantly better with a number of freshwater and terrestrial gastropod taxa. We compared the performance of this method with Qiagen® DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit. Reproducibility of amplification was verified using a set of taxon-specific primers, wherein modified CTAB extracted DNA could be replicated at least four out of five times but kit extracted DNA could not be replicated. In addition, sequence quality was significantly better with CTAB extracted DNA. This could be attributed to the removal of polyphenolic compounds by polyvinyl pyrrolidone which is the only difference between conventional and modified CTAB DNA extraction methods for animals. The genomic DNA isolated using modified CTAB protocol was of high quality (A260/280 ≥ 1.80) and could be used for downstream reactions even after long-term storage (more than 2 years).

| S-EPMC6982617 | biostudies-literature

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

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

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