Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Mus musculus

ABSTRACT: Evaluation of three small RNA library preparation kits on serum-derived RNA

PROVIDER: PRJNA349074 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	SRR4431140.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR4431150.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR4431131.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR4431141.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR4431151.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 24

Similar Datasets

Evaluation of three small RNA library preparation kits on serum-derived RNA

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

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 evaluation of RNA-Seq preparation protocol performance (RNASeq: TruSeq)

Project description:In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation of four RNA-Seq library preparation methods. We used three standard input protocols, the Illumina TruSeq Stranded Total RNA and TruSeq Stranded mRNA kits, and a modified NuGEN Ovation v2 kit; and an ultra-low-input RNA protocol, the TaKaRa SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit v3. Our evaluation of these kits included quality control measures such as overall reproducibility, 5’ and 3’ end-bias, and the identification of DEGs, lncRNAs, and alternatively spliced transcripts. Overall, we found that the two Illumina kits were most similar in terms of recovering DEGs, and the Illumina, modified NuGEN, and TaKaRa kits allowed identification of a similar set of DEGs. However, we also discovered that the Illumina, NuGEN and TaKaRa kits each enriched for different sets of genes.

2019-06-27 | GSE131397 | GEO

Systematic evaluation of RNA-Seq preparation protocol performance (RNASeq: SMARTer)

2019-06-27 | GSE131396 | GEO

Characterization of human plasma-derived exosomal RNAs

Project description:Exosomes, endosome-derived membrane microvesicles, contain a specific set of RNA transcripts that are involved in cell-cell communication and hold a great potential as disease biomarkers. To systemically characterize exosomal RNA profiles, we performed RNA sequencing analysis using three human plasma samples and evaluated efficacies of small RNA library preparation protocols from 3 manufacturers. We tested the six samples (A1 and A2, B1 and B2, C1 and C2) using two small RNA library preparation kits: NEBNext Multiplex Small RNA library Prep Set from New England Biolab (NEB) and NEXTflex Small RNA Sequencing Kit from Bioo Scientific (BS). We also tested IlluminaM-bM-^@M-^Ys TrueSeq Small RNA Sample Preparation Kit (ILMN) in sample A1 and A2. Together, we tested these plasma samples by sequencing 14 indexed libraries. This study allowed direct comparison of current small RNA library preparation protocols and identified the most suitable strategy for future exosomal RNA sequencing analysis.

2013-05-15 | E-GEOD-45722 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Project description:Comparison of DNA library preparation kits

| PRJNA769842 | ENA

Evaluation of RNA amplification and RNA-Seq library preparation protocols for spermatozoa RNA profiling

Project description:RNA-Seq technique was applied to investigate the effects of four cDNA amplification kits and two RNA-Seq library preparation kits to the deep sequencing results at different perspectives.

2015-05-09 | GSE57503 | 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

Comparative evaluation of RNA-Seq library preparation methods for strand-specificity and low input

Project description:Library preparation is a key step in gene expression quantification. There are considerable advantages to both strand specific sequencing and the ability to sequence samples with very small amounts of starting material. Until recently there was no kit available that allowed both simultaneously. The standard Illumina-TruSeq stranded mRNA Sample Preparation kit requires abundant starting quantity while the Takara Bio-SMART-Seq® v4 Ultra® Low Input RNA kit allows for ultra low starting quantities but sacrifices strand specificity. Recently a kit that can do both, SMARTer® Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit v2 - Pico Input Mammalian by Takara Bio, has become available. Evaluating the performance and effects of these sample preparation kits is a critical determinant for selecting the appropriate sequencing protocol, but a comprehensive comparison is currently missing. To address this we performed a detailed comparative analysis of sequencing libraries prepared with the three kits. We prepared a set of samples representing two experimental conditions with each kit, allowing for comparison of the kits in a standard realistic differential expression analysis. We find substantial differences in the levels of alignment and differential gene expression. Using differential expression analysis we show that using Pico results in identifying 55% less differentially expressed genes than TruSeq. Nevertheless, using gene pathway enrichment analysis we find similar results for all three kits, indicating that ultimately comparable functional results can be reached.

2019-09-17 | GSE124167 | GEO

Project description:Comparison of RNASeq Library Preparation Kits on FFPE Samples

| PRJNA660476 | ENA