Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

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

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

PROVIDER: PRJNA628969 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	SRR11631009.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR11631010.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR11631011.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR11631012.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR11631013.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 28

Similar Datasets

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

Comparison of library preparation methods

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

| PRJEB7411 | ENA

Library preparation Pool-seq

Project description:Evaluating different library preparation methods for Pool-seq

| PRJEB8948 | ENA

Systematic evaluation of library preparation methods and sequencing platforms for high-throughput whole genome bisulfite sequencing [Beadchip]

Project description:We systematically evaluated alternate strategies for WGBS studies, taking into account opportunites around library preparation methods, sequencing platforms and analysis pipeline optimization. We also assessed the performance and precision of the WGBS method relative to the methylation arrays, in an effort to provide data-driven recommendations for future WGBS studies, in particularly with respect to minimum coverage.

2019-07-29 | GSE128733 | GEO

Systematic evaluation of library preparation methods and sequencing platforms for high-throughput whole genome bisulfite sequencing [WGBS]

2019-07-29 | GSE128731 | GEO

Comparison of whole-genome bisulfite sequencing library preparation strategies identifies sources of biases affecting DNA methylation data

Project description:We performed a parallel analysis of commonly used pre- and post-bisulfite WGBS library preparation protocols for their performance and quality of sequencing outputs. Our results show that bisulfite conversion per se generates pronounced sequencing biases, and subsequent fragmentation and amplification steps lead to several-fold overrepresentation of these artefacts. Standard pre-bisulfite library preparation methods lead to a significantly biased genomic sequence representation and a marked overestimation of methylation levels. We have integrated a bias diagnostic tool in the Bismark package and propose that amplification-free and post-bisulfite procedures should become the gold standard for WGBS library preparation.

2017-02-16 | GSE77961 | GEO

Sequencing Universal Human Reference RNA by Smart-seq and early barcoding library preparation methods

Project description:Many library preparation methods are available for gene expression quantification. Here, we sequenced and analysed Universal Human Reference RNA (UHRR) prepared using Smart-Seq2, TruSeq (public data) and a protocol using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) that all include the ERCC spike-in mRNAs to investigate the effects of amplification bias on expression quantification. UHRR 10 and 12 replicates for Smart-seq2 and UMI-seq library preparation methods, respectively.

2016-05-13 | E-GEOD-75823 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Sequencing Universal Human Reference RNA by Smart-seq and early barcoding library preparation methods

2016-05-13 | GSE75823 | GEO

Limitations and possibilities of small RNA digital gene expression profiling: library preparation comparison (SOLiD)

Project description:Analysis of RNA samples by massive parallel sequencing holds the promise to assay gene expression in both a quantitative and qualitative fashion and therefore allows for digital gene expression (DGE) profiling. We assessed the effect of different experimental approaches by generating small RNA libraries from a biological sample as well as an equimolar pool of synthetic miRNAs and analyzed the results using capillary dideoxy sequencing and next-generation sequencing platforms (Roche/454, AB/SOLiD and Illumina/Solexa). Whereas different sequencing platforms provided highly similar results, large differences in DGE profiles were observed depending on the library preparation method used. Nevertheless, our results indicate that the preferential nature of the library preparation methods is systematic and highly reproducible and we show that DGE is well suited for the quantification of relative expression differences between samples. Keywords: Transcriptome analysis Examination of three different library preparation methods for small RNAs, two replicates per library method

2009-07-28 | E-GEOD-16370 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Limitations and possibilities of small RNA digital gene expression profiling: library preparation comparison (454)

2009-07-28 | E-GEOD-16369 | biostudies-arrayexpress