Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

A comparison of RNA extraction and sequencing protocols for detection of small RNAs in plasma

ABSTRACT: A comparison of RNA extraction and sequencing protocols for detection of small RNAs in plasma

PROVIDER: PRJNA484513 | ENA |

REPOSITORIES: ENA

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
	SRR7644060.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR7644070.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR7644080.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR7644090.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz
	SRR7644100.fastq.gz	Fastqsanger.gz

Items per page:

1 - 5 of 120

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

Assesing an improved protocol for plasma microRNA extraction

2013-10-18 | GSE51375 | GEO

A comparison of RNA extraction and sequencing protocols for detection of small RNAs in plasma.

Project description:BackgroundCirculating microRNAs (miRNAs) are attractive non-invasive biomarkers for a variety of conditions due to their stability and altered pathophysiological expression levels. Reliable detection of global expression profiles is required to maximise miRNA biomarker discovery. Although developments in small RNA-Seq technology have improved detection of plasma-based miRNAs, the low RNA content and sequencing bias introduced during library preparation remain challenging. In this study we compare commercially available RNA extraction methods using MagnaZol (Bioo Scientific) or miRNeasy (QIAGEN) and three library preparation methods - CleanTag (TriLink), NEXTflex (Bioo Scientific) and QIAseq (QIAGEN) - which aim to address one or both of these issues.ResultsDifferent RNA extractions and library preparation protocols result in differential detection of miRNAs. A greater proportion of reads mapped to miRNAs in libraries prepared with MagnaZol RNA than with miRNeasy RNA. Libraries prepared using QIAseq demonstrated the greatest miRNA diversity with many more very low abundance miRNAs detected (~ 2-3 fold more with < 10 reads), whilst CleanTag detected the fewest individual miRNAs and considerably over-represented miR-486-5p. Libraries prepared with QIAseq had the strongest correlation with RT-qPCR quantification. Analysis of unique molecular indices (UMIs) incorporated in the QIAseq protocol indicate that little PCR bias is introduced during small RNA library preparation.ConclusionsSmall RNAs were consistently detected using all RNA extraction and library preparation protocols tested, but with some miRNAs at significantly different levels. Choice of the most suitable protocol should be informed by the relative importance of minimising the total sequencing required, detection of rare miRNAs or absolute quantification.

| S-EPMC6547578 | biostudies-literature

Assesing an improved protocol for plasma microRNA extraction

Project description:The first step in biomarkers discovery is to identify the best protocols for their purification and analysis. We have identified an optimal RNA extraction method of microRNAs from human plasma samples. We also report that the addition of low doses of carrier RNA before starting RNA extraction improves microRNA extraction and quantification. Human plasma and matched biopsies were obtained from healthy donors and patients attended at the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (Valencia, Spain). RNA was extracted by different preanalytal conditions and reagents, testing the suitable of carrier addition at differnt doses. The best protocol was followed up by hybridation on Affymetrix microarrays.

2013-10-18 | E-GEOD-51375 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Optimization of Extraction of Circulating RNAs from Plasma

Project description:Optimization of Extraction of Circulating RNAs from Plasma - Enabling small RNA Sequencing

| PRJEB6683 | ENA

Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic study

Project description:Assessment of fecal DNA extraction protocols for metagenomic study

| PRJEB38036 | ENA

Comparison of bone demineralization protocols for paleoproteomics applications

Project description:Protocols for bone protein extraction adapted for radiocarbon dating were compared for their capability of being used also for paleoproteomics applications. Eight extraction protocols were tested on modern and archaeological bones. Molecular characterization of the extracts was performed by shot-gun proteomics. The effect of each extraction protocol on species identification through database searchnig was evaluated.

2018-12-11 | PXD010775 | Pride

A multiparametric extraction method for the molecular characterization of Vn96-isolated plasma extracellular vesicles

Project description:We demonstrate a method for the DNA, RNA and Protein extraction of plasma extracellular vesicles.

2020-01-08 | GSE133991 | GEO

Histone datasets for evaluation of histone extraction protocols

Project description:Extracting histones from cells is a routine operation for studies that aim to characterize histones and their post-translational modifications (hPTMs). However, label-free quantitative mass spectrometry (MS) approaches, both data-dependent (DDA) and data-independent (DIA), require streamlined protocols that are highly reproducible even at the peptide level, to enable simultaneous accurate quantification of dozens to hundreds of these hPTMs. We present a step-by-step comparison of different histone extraction protocols based on literature and evaluate their suitability for label-free MS purposes using a nanoESI label-free MS1 intensity-based DDA MS experiment. We evaluate the data both using a targeted and an untargeted (Progenesis QI) approach.

2016-10-11 | PXD002885 | Pride

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

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