Cargando…
Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods
BACKGROUND: RNA sequencing offers advantages over other quantification methods for microRNA (miRNA), yet numerous biases make reliable quantification challenging. Previous evaluations of these biases have focused on adapter ligation bias with limited evaluation of reverse transcription bias or ampli...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6588940/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31226924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5870-3 |
_version_ | 1783429311489900544 |
---|---|
author | Wright, Carrie Rajpurohit, Anandita Burke, Emily E. Williams, Courtney Collado-Torres, Leonardo Kimos, Martha Brandon, Nicholas J. Cross, Alan J. Jaffe, Andrew E. Weinberger, Daniel R. Shin, Joo Heon |
author_facet | Wright, Carrie Rajpurohit, Anandita Burke, Emily E. Williams, Courtney Collado-Torres, Leonardo Kimos, Martha Brandon, Nicholas J. Cross, Alan J. Jaffe, Andrew E. Weinberger, Daniel R. Shin, Joo Heon |
author_sort | Wright, Carrie |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: RNA sequencing offers advantages over other quantification methods for microRNA (miRNA), yet numerous biases make reliable quantification challenging. Previous evaluations of these biases have focused on adapter ligation bias with limited evaluation of reverse transcription bias or amplification bias. Furthermore, evaluations of the quantification of isomiRs (miRNA isoforms) or the influence of starting amount on performance have been very limited. No study had yet evaluated the quantification of isomiRs of altered length or compared the consistency of results derived from multiple moderate starting inputs. We therefore evaluated quantifications of miRNA and isomiRs using four library preparation kits, with various starting amounts, as well as quantifications following removal of duplicate reads using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to mitigate reverse transcription and amplification biases. RESULTS: All methods resulted in false isomiR detection; however, the adapter-free method tested was especially prone to false isomiR detection. We demonstrate that using UMIs improves accuracy and we provide a guide for input amounts to improve consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show differences and limitations of current methods, thus raising concerns about the validity of quantification of miRNA and isomiRs across studies. We advocate for the use of UMIs to improve accuracy and reliability of miRNA quantifications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-019-5870-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6588940 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65889402019-07-08 Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods Wright, Carrie Rajpurohit, Anandita Burke, Emily E. Williams, Courtney Collado-Torres, Leonardo Kimos, Martha Brandon, Nicholas J. Cross, Alan J. Jaffe, Andrew E. Weinberger, Daniel R. Shin, Joo Heon BMC Genomics Methodology Article BACKGROUND: RNA sequencing offers advantages over other quantification methods for microRNA (miRNA), yet numerous biases make reliable quantification challenging. Previous evaluations of these biases have focused on adapter ligation bias with limited evaluation of reverse transcription bias or amplification bias. Furthermore, evaluations of the quantification of isomiRs (miRNA isoforms) or the influence of starting amount on performance have been very limited. No study had yet evaluated the quantification of isomiRs of altered length or compared the consistency of results derived from multiple moderate starting inputs. We therefore evaluated quantifications of miRNA and isomiRs using four library preparation kits, with various starting amounts, as well as quantifications following removal of duplicate reads using unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to mitigate reverse transcription and amplification biases. RESULTS: All methods resulted in false isomiR detection; however, the adapter-free method tested was especially prone to false isomiR detection. We demonstrate that using UMIs improves accuracy and we provide a guide for input amounts to improve consistency. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show differences and limitations of current methods, thus raising concerns about the validity of quantification of miRNA and isomiRs across studies. We advocate for the use of UMIs to improve accuracy and reliability of miRNA quantifications. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12864-019-5870-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6588940/ /pubmed/31226924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5870-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Methodology Article Wright, Carrie Rajpurohit, Anandita Burke, Emily E. Williams, Courtney Collado-Torres, Leonardo Kimos, Martha Brandon, Nicholas J. Cross, Alan J. Jaffe, Andrew E. Weinberger, Daniel R. Shin, Joo Heon Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title | Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title_full | Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title_fullStr | Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title_short | Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
title_sort | comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small rna sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods |
topic | Methodology Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6588940/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31226924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5870-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wrightcarrie comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT rajpurohitanandita comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT burkeemilye comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT williamscourtney comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT colladotorresleonardo comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT kimosmartha comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT brandonnicholasj comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT crossalanj comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT jaffeandrewe comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT weinbergerdanielr comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods AT shinjooheon comprehensiveassessmentofmultiplebiasesinsmallrnasequencingrevealssignificantdifferencesintheperformanceofwidelyusedmethods |