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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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