The qPCR results of my ssTruSeq prep (Sultan, 2012) showed up a little weird:
The group of 4 that amplified first was the females (prepared on 12-15 with []'s of 512, 367, 553, and 455ng/ul from the bioanalyzer) while the second group of 4, amplifying around 14 cycles is the males (prepared on 12-7 with []'s of 3086, 5631, 1783, 2363ng/ul from the bioanalyzer). The initial concentrations shouldn't matter much because I dilute them down to have 2ng of RNA entering the ssTruseq protocol. In this case though, it seems that I over-diluted the males causing them to amplify later. There is something really odd going on here because when I looked back through my lab book, the concentration of those samples from the nanodrop was much less: 1351, 1559, 1027, and 1276ng/ul. In fact these concentrations are ~4x less (i.e.: two pcr cycles different...). As they amplify on average 2 cycles later, I took a look back at the bioanalyzer results and found that the concentrations were slightly outside the optimal range and therefore likely a little spurious.
In the future I will dilute my samples down and then nano-drop them before I start the ssTruSeq protocol in order to avoid starting with different concentrations of RNA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sultan, M., S. Dökel, V. Amstislavskiy, D. Wuttig, H. Sültmann, H. Lehrach and M.-L. Yaspo. 2012. A simple strand-specific RNA-Seq library preparation protocol combining the Illumina TruSeq RNA and the dUTP methods. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 422:643–646. Elsevier Inc.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
strand specific RNAseq: TruSeq Protocol + Sultan (2012)
I have begun preparing libraries for the sequencing. The Sultan (2012) protocol is nice and clear, but there are two buffers that it incorporates which are quite expensive. These buffers are parts of a second strand synthesis kit and it costs upwards of 1000$ for the kit - but the cost of the kit is due to the enzyme (which I don't use for Sultan's protocol) not the buffer. Instead of buying the entire kit, I ended up making the buffer myself (all the components cost less than 200$ total). Other than this issue with the buffer, I am quite pleased with the protocol in general.
the recipes I used are here:
5x second strand synthesis buffer invitrogen cat #11917-010
formula: 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 6.9), 450 mM KCl, 23 mM MgCl2, 0.75 mM beta-NAD+, 50 mM (NH4)2SO4
for 10ml:
-1ml Tris HCl pH6.9
-0.3355g KCl
-0.23ml 23mM MgCl2
-0.0050g beta NAD+
-0.0661g (NH4)2SO4
bring to 10ml with DEPC H20
10x Reverse transcription buffer invitrogen cat #18080051
formula: 200 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.4, 500 mM KCl
for 10ml:
-2ml 200mM Tris HCl pH 8.4
-0.3728g KCl
bring up to 10ml with DEPC H2O
As for the TruSeq protocol, the final step is a PCR enrichment of the adapter-ligated fragments. The protocol calls for 15 cycles to enrich the product, but that will likely place the reaction in the plateau phase (really bad because it results in "PCR duplicates" and reduces the overall complexity of the library). To optimize the number of cycles that I'll end up using I am running a qPCR. This will give me an understanding of how efficiently the library amplifies and therefore how many cycles to run so that my library is in the exponential phase and not plateau.
I started with 0.5ul of ligated product in the qPCR and the concentration was well below what the Nanodrop can read (not surprising as I haven't enriched it yet, but normally a bad sign). The qPCR results show that my library plateaued in 20 cycles, so I will be shooting for 14 cycles which should be mid-exponential phase. The next trick is that when I do the actual enrichment PCR I will have a much higher amount of starting DNA (~10ul instead of 0.5ul) and so plateau will be achieved much sooner. As I will be starting with 20x more DNA, I will need 4-5 fewer cycles (2^4 < 20 < 2^5). Assuming that the amplification will procede with the same efficiency (and that the efficiency is ~2, though often slightly lower, 1.8ish), this means that in my enrichment PCR I should use 10 cycles.
I will actually run two qPCRs to test the difference between 10 and 13 cycles. This should help me hone in on the exact number of cycles to use. I can afford to do this with this library as it is a "test." I won't be doing different cycles on the future libraries that I plan to sequence.
I will need to do this same qPCR experiment on each of my library samples and determine an "average" number of cycles to use. I could enrich each sample independently, but that is a bad idea since this is transcriptome work and the relative expression levels will depend on the number of cycles. I will probably do qPCR on the first 8 to get a good average, and then use that as the standard number of cycles for the entire experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sultan, M., S. Dökel, V. Amstislavskiy, D. Wuttig, H. Sültmann, H. Lehrach and M.-L. Yaspo. 2012. A simple strand-specific RNA-Seq library preparation protocol combining the Illumina TruSeq RNA and the dUTP methods. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 422:643–646. Elsevier Inc.
the recipes I used are here:
5x second strand synthesis buffer invitrogen cat #11917-010
formula: 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 6.9), 450 mM KCl, 23 mM MgCl2, 0.75 mM beta-NAD+, 50 mM (NH4)2SO4
for 10ml:
-1ml Tris HCl pH6.9
-0.3355g KCl
-0.23ml 23mM MgCl2
-0.0050g beta NAD+
-0.0661g (NH4)2SO4
bring to 10ml with DEPC H20
10x Reverse transcription buffer invitrogen cat #18080051
formula: 200 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.4, 500 mM KCl
for 10ml:
-2ml 200mM Tris HCl pH 8.4
-0.3728g KCl
bring up to 10ml with DEPC H2O
As for the TruSeq protocol, the final step is a PCR enrichment of the adapter-ligated fragments. The protocol calls for 15 cycles to enrich the product, but that will likely place the reaction in the plateau phase (really bad because it results in "PCR duplicates" and reduces the overall complexity of the library). To optimize the number of cycles that I'll end up using I am running a qPCR. This will give me an understanding of how efficiently the library amplifies and therefore how many cycles to run so that my library is in the exponential phase and not plateau.
I started with 0.5ul of ligated product in the qPCR and the concentration was well below what the Nanodrop can read (not surprising as I haven't enriched it yet, but normally a bad sign). The qPCR results show that my library plateaued in 20 cycles, so I will be shooting for 14 cycles which should be mid-exponential phase. The next trick is that when I do the actual enrichment PCR I will have a much higher amount of starting DNA (~10ul instead of 0.5ul) and so plateau will be achieved much sooner. As I will be starting with 20x more DNA, I will need 4-5 fewer cycles (2^4 < 20 < 2^5). Assuming that the amplification will procede with the same efficiency (and that the efficiency is ~2, though often slightly lower, 1.8ish), this means that in my enrichment PCR I should use 10 cycles.
I will actually run two qPCRs to test the difference between 10 and 13 cycles. This should help me hone in on the exact number of cycles to use. I can afford to do this with this library as it is a "test." I won't be doing different cycles on the future libraries that I plan to sequence.
I will need to do this same qPCR experiment on each of my library samples and determine an "average" number of cycles to use. I could enrich each sample independently, but that is a bad idea since this is transcriptome work and the relative expression levels will depend on the number of cycles. I will probably do qPCR on the first 8 to get a good average, and then use that as the standard number of cycles for the entire experiment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sultan, M., S. Dökel, V. Amstislavskiy, D. Wuttig, H. Sültmann, H. Lehrach and M.-L. Yaspo. 2012. A simple strand-specific RNA-Seq library preparation protocol combining the Illumina TruSeq RNA and the dUTP methods. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 422:643–646. Elsevier Inc.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Indexing Samples
Here is my earlier plan for multiplexing the samples:
Lane 1: Lane 2:
BBM1+2+3 BBM3+4+5
BBF1+2+3 BBF3+4+5
BSM1+2+3 BSM3+4+5
BSF1+2+3 BSF3+4+5
SBM1+2+3 SBM3+4+5
SBF1+2+3 SBF3+4+5
SSM1+2+3 SSM3+4+5
SSF1+2+3 SSF3+4+5
Each of these numbers will have it's own unique barcode. But as I only have 24 barcodes, some will have to be repeated between the lanes. For example, BBM3 must go in both lanes and will have the same barcode. This will force BBM1 and BBM4 to share a barcode, same with BBM2 and BBM5. It will end up with barcodes 1-16 in each lane but on different samples, and barcodes 17-24 in each lane and on the same sample.
Here is a schematic of my plan:
Here is a schematic of my plan:
Sample ID
|
Illumina Barcode Number
|
Reference Number (above)
|
Lane
| |
1
|
BB.BB15.3M
|
1
|
BBM1
|
1
|
2
|
BB.SS70.3M
|
2
|
BSM1
|
1
|
3
|
SS.BB20.2M
|
3
|
SBM1
|
1
|
4
|
SS.SS82.1M
|
4
|
SSM1
|
1
|
5
|
BB.BB15.4F
|
5
|
BBF1
|
1
|
6
|
BB.SS70.2F
|
6
|
BSF1
|
1
|
7
|
SS.BB20.6F
|
7
|
SBF1
|
1
|
8
|
SS.SS82.2F
|
8
|
SSF1
|
1
|
9
|
BB.BB77.2M
|
9
|
BBM2
|
1
|
10
|
BB.SS70.5M
|
10
|
BSM2
|
1
|
11
|
SS.BB25.5M
|
11
|
SBM2
|
1
|
12
|
SS.SS87.1M
|
12
|
SSM2
|
1
|
13
|
BB.BB77.1F
|
13
|
BBF2
|
1
|
14
|
BB.SS70.4F
|
14
|
BSF2
|
1
|
15
|
SS.BB25.3F
|
15
|
SBF2
|
1
|
16
|
SS.SS87.3F
|
16
|
SSF2
|
1
|
17
|
BB.BB86.2M
|
17
|
BBM3
|
both
|
18
|
BB.SS72.2M
|
18
|
BSM3
|
both
|
19
|
SS.BB25.3M
|
19
|
SBM3
|
both
|
20
|
SS.SS88.1M
|
20
|
SSM3
|
both
|
21
|
BB.BB86.1F
|
21
|
BBF3
|
both
|
22
|
BB.SS72.1F
|
22
|
BSF3
|
both
|
23
|
SS.BB29.1F
|
23
|
SBF3
|
both
|
24
|
SS.SS88.3F
|
24
|
SSF3
|
both
|
25
|
BB.BB87.6M
|
1
|
BBM4
|
2
|
26
|
BB.SS73.3M
|
2
|
BSM4
|
2
|
27
|
SS.BB20.8M
|
3
|
SBM4
|
2
|
28
|
SS.SS89.2M
|
4
|
SSM4
|
2
|
29
|
BB.BB87.1F
|
5
|
BBF4
|
2
|
30
|
BB.SS73.1F
|
6
|
BSF4
|
2
|
31
|
SS.BB24.2F
|
7
|
SBF4
|
2
|
32
|
SS.SS89.1F
|
8
|
SSF4
|
2
|
33
|
BB.BB77.3M
|
9
|
BBM5
|
2
|
34
|
BB.SS71.3M
|
10
|
BSM5
|
2
|
35
|
SS.BB22.4M
|
11
|
SBM5
|
2
|
36
|
SS.SS91.1M
|
12
|
SSM5
|
2
|
37
|
BB.BB90.1F
|
13
|
BBF5
|
2
|
38
|
BB.SS73.2F
|
14
|
BSF5
|
2
|
39
|
SS.BB24.3F
|
15
|
SBF5
|
2
|
40
|
SS.SS91.4F
|
16
|
SSF5
|
2
|
Furthermore, I will need to prepare these in even batches to avoid any weird batch effects. I will therefore do them in 5 batches of 8. Each batch will have one male and one female from each cross type.
I'll start the first batch (numbers 1-8) tomorrow.
I'll start the first batch (numbers 1-8) tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)