Cargando…
Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire
High-throughput sequencing has recently been applied to profile the high diversity of antibodyome/B cell receptors (BCRs) and T cell receptors (TCRs) among immune cells. To date, Multiplex PCR (MPCR) and 5’RACE are predominately used to enrich rearranged BCRs and TCRs. Both approaches have advantage...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4809601/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27019362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152464 |
_version_ | 1782423666702680064 |
---|---|
author | Liu, Xiao Zhang, Wei Zeng, Xiaojing Zhang, Ruifang Du, Yuanping Hong, Xueyu Cao, Hongzhi Su, Zheng Wang, Changxi Wu, Jinghua Nie, Chao Xu, Xun Kristiansen, Karsten |
author_facet | Liu, Xiao Zhang, Wei Zeng, Xiaojing Zhang, Ruifang Du, Yuanping Hong, Xueyu Cao, Hongzhi Su, Zheng Wang, Changxi Wu, Jinghua Nie, Chao Xu, Xun Kristiansen, Karsten |
author_sort | Liu, Xiao |
collection | PubMed |
description | High-throughput sequencing has recently been applied to profile the high diversity of antibodyome/B cell receptors (BCRs) and T cell receptors (TCRs) among immune cells. To date, Multiplex PCR (MPCR) and 5’RACE are predominately used to enrich rearranged BCRs and TCRs. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages; however, a systematic evaluation and direct comparison of them would benefit researchers in the selection of the most suitable method. In this study, we used both pooled control plasmids and spiked-in cells to benchmark the MPCR bias. RNA from three healthy donors was subsequently processed with the two methods to perform a comparative evaluation of the TCR β chain sequences. Both approaches demonstrated high reproducibility (R(2) = 0.9958 and 0.9878, respectively). No differences in gene usage were identified for most V/J genes (>60%), and an average of 52.03% of the CDR3 amino acid sequences overlapped. MPCR exhibited a certain degree of bias, in which the usage of several genes deviated from 5’RACE, and some V-J pairings were lost. In contrast, there was a smaller rate of effective data from 5’RACE (11.25% less compared with MPCR). Nevertheless, the methodological variability was smaller compared with the biological variability. Through direct comparison, these findings provide novel insights into the two experimental methods, which will prove to be valuable in immune repertoire research and its interpretation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4809601 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48096012016-04-05 Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire Liu, Xiao Zhang, Wei Zeng, Xiaojing Zhang, Ruifang Du, Yuanping Hong, Xueyu Cao, Hongzhi Su, Zheng Wang, Changxi Wu, Jinghua Nie, Chao Xu, Xun Kristiansen, Karsten PLoS One Research Article High-throughput sequencing has recently been applied to profile the high diversity of antibodyome/B cell receptors (BCRs) and T cell receptors (TCRs) among immune cells. To date, Multiplex PCR (MPCR) and 5’RACE are predominately used to enrich rearranged BCRs and TCRs. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages; however, a systematic evaluation and direct comparison of them would benefit researchers in the selection of the most suitable method. In this study, we used both pooled control plasmids and spiked-in cells to benchmark the MPCR bias. RNA from three healthy donors was subsequently processed with the two methods to perform a comparative evaluation of the TCR β chain sequences. Both approaches demonstrated high reproducibility (R(2) = 0.9958 and 0.9878, respectively). No differences in gene usage were identified for most V/J genes (>60%), and an average of 52.03% of the CDR3 amino acid sequences overlapped. MPCR exhibited a certain degree of bias, in which the usage of several genes deviated from 5’RACE, and some V-J pairings were lost. In contrast, there was a smaller rate of effective data from 5’RACE (11.25% less compared with MPCR). Nevertheless, the methodological variability was smaller compared with the biological variability. Through direct comparison, these findings provide novel insights into the two experimental methods, which will prove to be valuable in immune repertoire research and its interpretation. Public Library of Science 2016-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4809601/ /pubmed/27019362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152464 Text en © 2016 Liu 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Liu, Xiao Zhang, Wei Zeng, Xiaojing Zhang, Ruifang Du, Yuanping Hong, Xueyu Cao, Hongzhi Su, Zheng Wang, Changxi Wu, Jinghua Nie, Chao Xu, Xun Kristiansen, Karsten Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title | Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title_full | Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title_fullStr | Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title_full_unstemmed | Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title_short | Systematic Comparative Evaluation of Methods for Investigating the TCRβ Repertoire |
title_sort | systematic comparative evaluation of methods for investigating the tcrβ repertoire |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4809601/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27019362 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152464 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liuxiao systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT zhangwei systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT zengxiaojing systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT zhangruifang systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT duyuanping systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT hongxueyu systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT caohongzhi systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT suzheng systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT wangchangxi systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT wujinghua systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT niechao systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT xuxun systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire AT kristiansenkarsten systematiccomparativeevaluationofmethodsforinvestigatingthetcrbrepertoire |