Cargando…
Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol
OBJECTIVES: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747248/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071745 |
_version_ | 1782280897666482176 |
---|---|
author | Sun, Zhifu Asmann, Yan W. Nair, Asha Zhang, Yuji Wang, Liguo Kalari, Krishna R. Bhagwate, Aditya V. Baker, Tiffany R. Carr, Jennifer M. Kocher, Jean-Pierre A. Perez, Edith A. Thompson, E. Aubrey |
author_facet | Sun, Zhifu Asmann, Yan W. Nair, Asha Zhang, Yuji Wang, Liguo Kalari, Krishna R. Bhagwate, Aditya V. Baker, Tiffany R. Carr, Jennifer M. Kocher, Jean-Pierre A. Perez, Edith A. Thompson, E. Aubrey |
author_sort | Sun, Zhifu |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression. RESULTS: Sequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12–20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17–20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5–6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20–25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and “novel” lincRNAs. CONCLUSION: Different library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3747248 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-37472482013-08-23 Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol Sun, Zhifu Asmann, Yan W. Nair, Asha Zhang, Yuji Wang, Liguo Kalari, Krishna R. Bhagwate, Aditya V. Baker, Tiffany R. Carr, Jennifer M. Kocher, Jean-Pierre A. Perez, Edith A. Thompson, E. Aubrey PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVES: The sequencing by the PolyA selection is the most common approach for library preparation. With limited amount or degraded RNA, alternative protocols such as the NuGEN have been developed. However, it is not yet clear how the different library preparations affect the downstream analyses of the broad applications of RNA sequencing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eight human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lines with high quality RNA were sequenced by Illumina’s mRNA-Seq PolyA selection and NuGEN ENCORE library preparation. The following analyses and comparisons were conducted: 1) the numbers of genes captured by each protocol; 2) the impact of protocols on differentially expressed gene detection between biological replicates; 3) expressed single nucleotide variant (SNV) detection; 4) non-coding RNAs, particularly lincRNA detection; and 5) intragenic gene expression. RESULTS: Sequences from the NuGEN protocol had lower (75%) alignment rate than the PolyA (over 90%). The NuGEN protocol detected fewer genes (12–20% less) with a significant portion of reads mapped to non-coding regions. A large number of genes were differentially detected between the two protocols. About 17–20% of the differentially expressed genes between biological replicates were commonly detected between the two protocols. Significantly higher numbers of SNVs (5–6 times) were detected in the NuGEN samples, which were largely from intragenic and intergenic regions. The NuGEN captured fewer exons (25% less) and had higher base level coverage variance. While 6.3% of reads were mapped to intragenic regions in the PolyA samples, the percentages were much higher (20–25%) for the NuGEN samples. The NuGEN protocol did not detect more known non-coding RNAs such as lincRNAs, but targeted small and “novel” lincRNAs. CONCLUSION: Different library preparations can have significant impacts on downstream analysis and interpretation of RNA-seq data. The NuGEN provides an alternative for limited or degraded RNA but it has limitations for some RNA-seq applications. Public Library of Science 2013-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3747248/ /pubmed/23977132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071745 Text en © 2013 Sun et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sun, Zhifu Asmann, Yan W. Nair, Asha Zhang, Yuji Wang, Liguo Kalari, Krishna R. Bhagwate, Aditya V. Baker, Tiffany R. Carr, Jennifer M. Kocher, Jean-Pierre A. Perez, Edith A. Thompson, E. Aubrey Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title | Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title_full | Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title_fullStr | Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title_short | Impact of Library Preparation on Downstream Analysis and Interpretation of RNA-Seq Data: Comparison between Illumina PolyA and NuGEN Ovation Protocol |
title_sort | impact of library preparation on downstream analysis and interpretation of rna-seq data: comparison between illumina polya and nugen ovation protocol |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747248/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23977132 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071745 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sunzhifu impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT asmannyanw impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT nairasha impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT zhangyuji impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT wangliguo impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT kalarikrishnar impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT bhagwateadityav impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT bakertiffanyr impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT carrjenniferm impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT kocherjeanpierrea impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT perezeditha impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol AT thompsoneaubrey impactoflibrarypreparationondownstreamanalysisandinterpretationofrnaseqdatacomparisonbetweenilluminapolyaandnugenovationprotocol |