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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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