Comparision of different commercial library preparation kits for soil metagenomics studies
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: PRJEB50284 | ENA |
REPOSITORIES: ENA
Dataset's files
| Action | DRS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ERR8263082.fasta.gz | Fasta.gz | |||
| ERR8263094.fasta.gz | Fasta.gz | |||
| ERR8263093.fasta.gz | Fasta.gz | |||
| ERR8263079.fasta.gz | Fasta.gz | |||
| ERR8263095.fasta.gz | Fasta.gz |
Items per page: 5 1 - 5 of 51 |
Similar Datasets
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
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:Commercial ChIP-Seq library preparation kits performed differently for different classes of protein targets
| PRJNA804722 | ENA
Project description:We evaluated the effect of the small RNA library preparation method on 5' tRNA-halves and miRNA abundance in libraries prepared from serum RNA using three commercially available small RNA library preparation kits (TruSeq small RNA library preparation kit v2 (Illumina), TailorMix miRNA sample preparation kit v2 (Seqmatic) and the NEBNext Multiplex Small RNA library prep kit (New England Biolabs)). RNA isolated from 100 µl of serum collected from healthy mice was used as input for the preparation of a small RNA library in duplicate and libraries were single end sequenced.
2017-02-22 | GSE88914 | GEO
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
Project description:ChIP-Seq is a powerful method commonly used to study global protein-DNA interactions including both transcription factors and histone modifications. We have found that the choice of ChIP-Seq library preparation protocol plays an important role in overall ChIP-Seq data quality. However, very few studies have compared ChIP-Seq libraries prepared by different protocols using multiple targets and a broad range of input DNA levels. In this study, we evaluated the performance of four ChIP-Seq library preparation protocols [NEB NEBNext Ultra II, Roche KAPA HyperPrep, Diagenode MicroPlex, and Bioo (now PerkinElmer) NEXTflex] on three target proteins, chosen to represent the three typical signal enrichment patterns in ChIP-Seq experiments: sharp peaks (H3K4me3), broad domains (H3K27me3) and punctate peaks with a protein binding motif (CTCF). We also tested a broad range of different input DNA levels from 0.10 to 10 ng for H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 experiments. Our results suggest that the NEB protocol may be better for preparing H3K4me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with sharp peak enrichment) libraries; the Bioo protocol may be better for preparing H3K27me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with broad domain enrichment) libraries, and the Diagenode protocol may be better for preparing CTCF (and potentially other transcription factors with well-defined binding motifs) libraries. For ChIP-Seq experiments using novel targets without a known signal enrichment pattern, the NEB protocol might be the best choice as it performed well for each of the three targets we tested across a wide array of input DNA levels.
2023-06-23 | GSE196402 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundChromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-Seq) is a powerful method commonly used to study global protein-DNA interactions including both transcription factors and histone modifications. We have found that the choice of ChIP-Seq library preparation protocol plays an important role in overall ChIP-Seq data quality. However, very few studies have compared ChIP-Seq libraries prepared by different protocols using multiple targets and a broad range of input DNA levels.ResultsIn this study, we evaluated the performance of 4 ChIP-Seq library preparation protocols (New England Biolabs [NEB] NEBNext Ultra II, Roche KAPA HyperPrep, Diagenode MicroPlex, and Bioo [now PerkinElmer] NEXTflex) on 3 target proteins, chosen to represent the 3 typical signal enrichment patterns in ChIP-Seq experiments: sharp peaks (H3K4me3), broad domains (H3K27me3), and punctate peaks with a protein binding motif (CTCF). We also tested a broad range of different input DNA levels from 0.10 to 10 ng for H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 experiments.ConclusionsOur results suggest that the NEB protocol may be better for preparing H3K4me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with sharp peak enrichment) libraries; the Bioo protocol may be better for preparing H3K27me3 (and potentially other histone modifications with broad domain enrichment) libraries, and the Diagenode protocol may be better for preparing CTCF (and potentially other transcription factors with well-defined binding motifs) libraries. For ChIP-Seq experiments using novel targets without a known signal enrichment pattern, the NEB protocol might be the best choice, as it performed well for each of the 3 targets we tested across a wide array of input DNA levels.
| S-EPMC10001930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
| PRJNA552326 | ENA
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
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