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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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