Cargando…

Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of transcriptomic datasets has allowed for meta-analyses, which can be valuable due to their increased statistical power. However, meta-analyses can be confounded by so-called “batch effects,” where technical variation across different batches of RNA-seq experiments...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scholes, Amanda N., Lewis, Jeffrey A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32197587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6673-2
_version_ 1783508439890132992
author Scholes, Amanda N.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
author_facet Scholes, Amanda N.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
author_sort Scholes, Amanda N.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The increasing number of transcriptomic datasets has allowed for meta-analyses, which can be valuable due to their increased statistical power. However, meta-analyses can be confounded by so-called “batch effects,” where technical variation across different batches of RNA-seq experiments can clearly produce spurious signals of differential expression and reduce our power to detect true differences. While batch effects can sometimes be accounted for, albeit with caveats, a better strategy is to understand their sources to better avoid them. In this study, we examined the effects of RNA isolation method as a possible source of batch effects in RNA-seq design. RESULTS: Based on the different chemistries of “classic” hot phenol extraction of RNA compared to common commercial RNA isolation kits, we hypothesized that specific mRNAs may be preferentially extracted depending upon method, which could masquerade as differential expression in downstream RNA-seq analyses. We tested this hypothesis using the Saccharomyces cerevisiae heat shock response as a well-validated environmental response. Comparing technical replicates that only differed in RNA isolation method, we found over one thousand transcripts that appeared “differentially” expressed when comparing hot phenol extraction with the two kits. Strikingly, transcripts with higher abundance in the phenol-extracted samples were enriched for membrane proteins, suggesting that indeed the chemistry of hot phenol extraction better solubilizes those species of mRNA. CONCLUSIONS: Within a self-contained experimental batch (e.g. control versus treatment), the method of RNA isolation had little effect on the ability to identify differentially expressed transcripts. However, we suggest that researchers performing meta-analyses across different experimental batches strongly consider the RNA isolation methods for each experiment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7082934
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70829342020-03-23 Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses Scholes, Amanda N. Lewis, Jeffrey A. BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: The increasing number of transcriptomic datasets has allowed for meta-analyses, which can be valuable due to their increased statistical power. However, meta-analyses can be confounded by so-called “batch effects,” where technical variation across different batches of RNA-seq experiments can clearly produce spurious signals of differential expression and reduce our power to detect true differences. While batch effects can sometimes be accounted for, albeit with caveats, a better strategy is to understand their sources to better avoid them. In this study, we examined the effects of RNA isolation method as a possible source of batch effects in RNA-seq design. RESULTS: Based on the different chemistries of “classic” hot phenol extraction of RNA compared to common commercial RNA isolation kits, we hypothesized that specific mRNAs may be preferentially extracted depending upon method, which could masquerade as differential expression in downstream RNA-seq analyses. We tested this hypothesis using the Saccharomyces cerevisiae heat shock response as a well-validated environmental response. Comparing technical replicates that only differed in RNA isolation method, we found over one thousand transcripts that appeared “differentially” expressed when comparing hot phenol extraction with the two kits. Strikingly, transcripts with higher abundance in the phenol-extracted samples were enriched for membrane proteins, suggesting that indeed the chemistry of hot phenol extraction better solubilizes those species of mRNA. CONCLUSIONS: Within a self-contained experimental batch (e.g. control versus treatment), the method of RNA isolation had little effect on the ability to identify differentially expressed transcripts. However, we suggest that researchers performing meta-analyses across different experimental batches strongly consider the RNA isolation methods for each experiment. BioMed Central 2020-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7082934/ /pubmed/32197587 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6673-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Scholes, Amanda N.
Lewis, Jeffrey A.
Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title_full Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title_fullStr Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title_short Comparison of RNA isolation methods on RNA-Seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
title_sort comparison of rna isolation methods on rna-seq: implications for differential expression and meta-analyses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082934/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32197587
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-6673-2
work_keys_str_mv AT scholesamandan comparisonofrnaisolationmethodsonrnaseqimplicationsfordifferentialexpressionandmetaanalyses
AT lewisjeffreya comparisonofrnaisolationmethodsonrnaseqimplicationsfordifferentialexpressionandmetaanalyses