Subscribe to the RNA-Seq Blog
Featured Events
.png)
Media Partners
Polls
Loading ...
May
7
Bacterial RNA sequencing workflow for PGM™
Filed Under Reader Conributions, Sequencing Protocols | Leave a Comment
Over the years, we at Ambion receive a number of requests for information about the best way to isolate and ribo-deplete prokaryotic total RNA for next-gen sequencing. I just wanted to give a brief overview and some suggestions on RNA bacterial sequencing using the Ion platform (specifically, the PGM™). After trying several methods to extract and purify total RNA from E. coli dh10b, we found that lysing and extracting using TRIzol® Reagent and isolating/purifying with the mirVana™ miRNA isolation glass-fiber filter results in the most complete recovery of total RNA. Specifically, we followed the TRIzol® Reagent protocol and homogenized using trizol then phase separated with chloroform. We then transferred the aqueous phase containing the RNA into a new RNase-free 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube and followed the mirVana™ miRNA Isolation Kit protocol starting with the Total RNA Isolation Procedure section and eluted with 100uL of Elution Solution. This method is able to recover both large and small RNA molecules including miRNA, siRNA, snRNA, and other small RNA transcripts of yet unknown functions. The total RNA went through DNase I digestion to remove any genomic DNA contamination. Before proceeding to rRNA removal we checked the quality of the total RNA on an Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer using the RNA 6000 Nano kit (see Figure 1). It is important that the RNA be high quality for maximum rRNA removal efficiency.
Figure 1. Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer electropherogram of total RNA using TRIzol® Reagent for lysis/extraction and mirVana™ miRNA isolation glass-fiber filter for purification.
Incoming search terms:
- zebrafish agilent bioanalyzer cdna
- www rna-seqblog com bacterial-rna-sequencing-workflow-for-pgm
- zebra fish rna bioanalyzer
- what are next generation rna sequencing
- transcriptomics torrent transcriptome kit v2
- single-cell quartz-seq
- nugen mondrian chip pricing
- next-generation sequencing solid system loses market share
- next generation sequencing in plant viruses
- next generation sequencing hi seq
Apr
18
Quartz-Seq – a highly reproducible and sensitive single-cell RNA-Seq reveals non-genetic gene expression heterogeneity
Filed Under Sequencing Protocols | Leave a Comment
A highly reproducible and sensitive single-cell RNA-Seq method will facilitate the understanding of the biological roles and underlying mechanisms of the non-genetic cellular heterogeneity. Now, researchers from the RIKEN Center have developed a novel single-cell RNA-Seq method called Quartz-Seq that has a simpler protocol and higher reproducibility and sensitivity compared to previously developed methods. They demonstrate that single-cell Quartz-Seq quantitatively detects various kind of non-genetic cellular heterogeneity. The method detects different cell types and different cell-cycle phases of a single-cell type. Moreover, this method can comprehensively reveal gene expression heterogeneity between single-cells of the same cell type at the same cell-cycle phase.
Demonstration of new single-cell RNA-seq method, Quartz-Seq – http://single.cellcomplex.org/
- Sasagawa Y, Nikaido I et al. (2013) Quartz-Seq: a highly reproducible and sensitive single-cell RNA-Seq reveals non-genetic gene expression heterogeneity. Genome Biology 14:R31. [abstract]
Incoming search terms:
- Quartz-Seq
- quartz seq
- rna seq peak heterogeneity
- www rna-seqblog com quartz-seq-a-highly-reproducible-and-sensitive-single-cell-rna-seq-reveals-non-genetic-gene-expression-heterogeneity
- methods challenges and potentials of single cell rna-seq
Mar
21
Accuracy of RNA-Seq and its dependence on sequencing depth
Filed Under Publications, Sequencing Protocols | Leave a Comment
The cost of DNA sequencing has undergone a dramatical reduction in the past decade. As a result, sequencing technologies have been increasingly applied to genomic research. RNA-Seq is becoming a common technique for surveying gene expression based on DNA sequencing. As it is not clear how increased sequencing capacity has affected measurement accuracy of mRNA, we sought to investigate that relationship.
Researchers at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have empirically evaluated the accuracy of repeated gene expression measurements using RNA-Seq. They identifed library preparation steps prior to DNA sequencing as the main source of error in this process. Studying three datasets, they show that the accuracy indeed improves with the sequencing depth. However, the rate of improvement as a function of sequence reads is generally slower than predicted by the binomial distribution. They therefore used the beta-binomial distribution to model the overdispersion. The overdispersion parameters they introduced depend explicitly on the number of reads so that the resulting statistical uncertainty is consistent with the empirical data that measurement accuracy increases with the sequencing depth. The overdispersion parameters were determined by maximizing the likelihood. They show that their modified beta-binomial model had lower false discovery rate than the binomial or the pure beta-binomial models.
- Cai G, Li H, Lu Y, Huang X, Lee J, Müller P, Ji Y, Liang S. (2012) Accuracy of RNA-Seq and its dependence on sequencing depth. BMC Bioinformatics 13 Suppl 13, S5. [article]
Incoming search terms:
- Libraray preparation in ngs
- strand specific sequencing illumina movie
- illumina non-directional sequencing
- library preparation adapter illumina sequencing
- rna-seq strand specific illumina principle
- library complexity rna seq
- rna-seq library preparation kit price
- rna-seq low library complexity
- 454 library prep
- single end paired end
Jan
24
The Latest RNA-Seq Application – Degradome Sequencing
Filed Under Information, Sequencing Protocols | Leave a Comment
Degradome sequencing for identification of miRNA targets in plants
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are endogenous regulators of a broad range of physiological processes and act by either degrading mRNA or blocking its translation. Mature miRNAs function within large complexes to negatively regulate specific target mRNAs. Plant miRNAs generally interact with their targets through perfect or near-perfect complementarity and direct mRNA target degradation.
In plants, miRNAs not only post-transcriptionally regulate their own targets but also interact with each other in regulatory networks to affect many aspects of development, such as growth, development and responses to biotic and abiotic stresses. Hundreds of miRNAs have been identified in higher plants by direct cloning or more recently by next-gen sequencing. To determine the function of these miRNAs we must first identify their targets.
Originally, plant miRNA targets have been studied via computational prediction, which is based on either perfect or near-perfect sequence complementarity between miRNA and the target mRNA or sequence conservation among different species. However, target prediction is very challenging, especially when a high level of mismatches exists in miRNA:target pairing.
Recently, a new method called degradome sequencing, which combines high-throughput RNA sequencing with bioinformatic tools, has-been successfully established to screen for miRNA targets in plants. Using degradome sequencing, many of the previously validated and predicted targets of miRNAs have been verified indicating that it is an efficient strategy to identify smRNA targets on a large scale in plants.
Degradome sequencing reveals miRNA targets by globally identifying the remnants of small RNA-directed target cleavage by sequencing the 5′ ends of uncapped RNAs. Sequencing reads are mapped to mRNAs and the 5′ terminal nucleotide of miRNA-cleaved mRNA fragments corresponds to the nucleotide that is complementary to the 10th nucleotide of the miRNA. Therefore, the cleaved RNA targets have distinct peaks in the degradome sequence reads at the predicted cleavage site relative to other regions of the transcript. Confirmed miRNA targets are presented in the form of target plots (t-plots).
Incoming search terms:
- degradome
- rna degradome
- degradome sequencing ppt
- micro rnaseq blog
- deep sequencing of degradome libraries illumina
- heatmap mirna seq\ r
- High-throughput degradomesequencing can be used to gain insights into microR
- how to sequence degradome
- illumina degradome sequencing
- ion torrent for degradome analysis
Jan
1
How deep is deep enough for RNA-Seq profiling of bacterial transcriptomes?
Filed Under Publications, Sequencing Protocols | Leave a Comment
High-throughput sequencing of cDNA libraries (RNA-Seq) has proven to be a highly effective approach for studying bacterial transcriptomes. A central challenge in designing RNA-Seq-based experiments is estimating a priori the number of reads per sample needed to detect and quantify thousands of individual transcripts with a large dynamic range of abundance.
Now, researchers at The Broad Institute have conducted a systematic examination of how changes in the number of RNA-Seq reads per sample influences both profiling of a single bacterial transcriptome and the comparison of gene expression among samples. Their findings suggest that the number of reads typically produced in a single lane of the Illumina HiSeq sequencer far exceeds the number needed to saturate the annotated transcriptomes of diverse bacteria growing in monoculture. Moreover, as sequencing depth increases, so too does the detection of cDNAs that likely correspond to spurious transcripts or genomic DNA contamination. Finally, even when dozens of barcoded individual cDNA libraries are sequenced in a single lane, the vast majority of transcripts in each sample can be detected and numerous genes differentially expressed between samples can be identified.
This analysis provides a guide for the many researchers seeking to determine the appropriate sequencing depth for RNA-Seq-based studies of diverse bacterial species.
- Haas BJ, Chin M, Nusbaum C, Birren BW, Livny J. (2012) How deep is deep enough for RNA-Seq profiling of bacterial transcriptomes? BMC Genomics 13(1):734. [Epub ahead of print]. [abstract]
Incoming search terms:
- bacteria transcriptome splicing
- bacterial transcriptome rna degradation
- bacterial transcriptome sequecing
- bam samtools
- how deep is deep enough for rna-seq profiling of bacterial transcriptomes?
- rna sequencing microbial transcriptome 2013
Social Networking Pages
-
SEQanswers – RNA Sequencing- CuffDiff strange output May 23, 2013Hi, I hope that someone can be so gentle to help me. I'm analizing some data from RNA-Seq with TopHat and Cufflinks and I focus my attention on... […]Pruexel
- cannot away with cuffdiff,incredible May 23, 2013Hi,all I have 4(A,B,C,D) sample in 4 times(increasing time),I got diff result in 3 different cuffdiff 1.cuffdiff 3(A,B,C) individual... […]upper
- TopHat extremely low paired mapping rate. PLS HELP! May 22, 2013Hey guys, I have some problems with my paried-end RNA seq analysis on Galaxy. As you can see in the bam flagstat output, my tophat alignment rate is... […]Felix.Lee
- Identifying small RNA sequence within whole genome sequence May 21, 2013Hi all, I want to know if there are any useful bioinformatic tool to find small RNA sequence within a whole bacteria genome. Thank you in... […]Inma
- standard of clean data May 21, 2013Hi all I recently got my prokaryotes RNA-seq data report back. the standard filter steps of the raw data set by our local sequencing center is as... […]Pengfei Liu
- Problem with cummeRbund diffData() May 20, 2013Hi all, I'm running Tophat/cufflinks/cuffdiff for differential gene expression and analysis with cummeRbund (v 2.0.0). I'm having an issue with... […]Enrique Zudaire
- CuffDiff strange output May 23, 2013
- Biostar – RNA-Seq
- Why am I getting so many unmapped reads in STAR, classified as "too short"?I am currently using STAR to map several Hi-SEQ mRNA runs. I'm having trouble getting a decent amount of reads to map, but I don't really understand why. I'm hoping you can shed some light :) In the final log, only about 50% (or less) of the reads map to the reference. I'm using a GTF in addition to the genome. The unmapped bin that most […]
- What are the best practices for SNP identification in RNA seq transcriptome dataI have 20 RICE RNA seq tranascriptome data hiseq 2000 platform paired end reads. I aligned fasta reads with BWA and remove PCR duplicates with PICARD. Later I call SNP with samtools using various parameters. I would like to clarify what parameters should I used while alinging to reference rice genome for looking SNP location 100 bp upstream and 250 bp downst […]
- How do TopHat options -g , --supress-hits, and Bowtie options interplay?Hi, I am currently using TopHat2 to map RNA-seq runs. I think there have been some changes pertaining the -g option. Does anyone know how it works now? I used to think that setting -g would look for n alignments for a given read, report them [if top-scoring] and discard those reads that had more than g [top scoring] alignments. Now, the description sounds mo […]
- What happened to -k in TopHat for multiple-mapping reads?Selecting -g n in tophat does not discard reads mapping more than n, but instead only reports n alignments for those out all all their TOP scoring alignments. I think there used to be an option -k that would allow one to discard reads that topped x alignments -- whatever happened to that? I only see -g in the tophat 2 manual, no reporting options like before […]
- Does tophat use the library-type information for mapping, or just for the XS flag?When I specify library-type to TopHat, i.e., first-strand, second-strand, unstranded, TopHat appends a value + or - to the XS:A flag, which is useful for subsequent analyses, such as annotation. However, does this information actually influence the "mappability" of reads, or is this unaffected? My thinking is that the information would be considere […]
- Purpose of Y-shaped adapters in Illumina Sequencing?Hi all, Y adapters different sequences to be annealed to the 5' and 3' ends of each molecule in a library. The arms of the Y are unique, and the middle part, connected to the DNA fragment, is complementary. What are the advantages of this? My take of this over having fully-complementary adapters (ADAPTER1 - - - - - ADAPTER1) is that: -Upon primer a […]
- Why am I getting so many unmapped reads in STAR, classified as "too short"?