Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sael18
    replied
    Hi guys
    I saw a protocol on other lab where they use 2% Digitonin as a detergent.
    they said mtDNA significantly reduced by using this detergent.
    Hope it works with you guys

    Leave a comment:


  • Julescientist
    replied
    Hello everybody,

    Happy to have found this thread and here I have a question:

    The more detergent during the ATAC preparation, the less mtDNA, any difference as to what detergent? NP40 vs Tween for example?


    J

    Leave a comment:


  • NickPantelireis
    replied
    Originally posted by Jubs View Post
    Hi Jimmie,

    No, I have only sequenced the library that gave best results. I agree it would be nice to have technical replicates with the different detergent concentrations, but, you know, money... :P

    I measured mtDNA by qPCR, and the only 'useful' information I have is the obvious: more detergent, less mtDNA (plus, with no detergent at all, mtDNA goes up to the roof).

    And in agreement with what I said in my previous reply, the more mtDNA, the higher the enrichments of regions of interest. So, in samples with high mtDNA, the fold enrichments of regions of interest are higher than in samples with less mtDNA.

    Cheers!
    Hi Jubs,

    How did you measure the mtDNA content with qPCR. Was it an absolute measurement or a relative comparison? I've been thinking of doing a qPCR for a housekeeping gDNA gene and a mtDNA gene and comparing the relative expression. But will this give me a true indication of the % of mtDNA I have?

    Nick

    Leave a comment:


  • SamanthaC
    replied
    Hi. Just trying out the ATAC-seq protocol in its original form. Any tips on how to not lose the nuclei when pipetting out the supernatant? If i carryover residual lysis buffer, I'm afraid I might see more of the mitochondrial DNA contamination you all are talking about.. Any tips?
    Last edited by SamanthaC; 01-11-2017, 07:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rstarks1
    replied
    When you looked at the original data how many reads did you get aligning? I am only getting ~50% and I was wondering if that is what others are getting.

    Thanks in Advance!

    Leave a comment:


  • d_alek
    replied
    Hi Jubs and others,

    thanks for making .pdf of the protocol available in your earlier post. I am just preparing to do try this protocol soon.. and after seeing mtDNA comments I started thinking whether a very mild lysis, followed by a quick Dounce "homogenisation" and then wash would help to get rid of mitochondria.. Or alternatively Dounce "homogenisation" and wash after the tagmentation reaction, before DNA isolation, to get rid of mitochondria with tagmented DNA

    Oh and btw, did you lyse on ice for 10 minutes or how long? (in whatever concentration of IGEPAL 0.1 or 0.01)

    Cheers

    Leave a comment:


  • Jubs
    replied
    Hi Jimmie,

    No, I have only sequenced the library that gave best results. I agree it would be nice to have technical replicates with the different detergent concentrations, but, you know, money... :P

    I measured mtDNA by qPCR, and the only 'useful' information I have is the obvious: more detergent, less mtDNA (plus, with no detergent at all, mtDNA goes up to the roof).

    And in agreement with what I said in my previous reply, the more mtDNA, the higher the enrichments of regions of interest. So, in samples with high mtDNA, the fold enrichments of regions of interest are higher than in samples with less mtDNA.

    Cheers!

    Leave a comment:


  • yimmieg
    replied
    hi ju,

    cool to see that you have reduced mtDNA with changing lysis conditions. did you ever do a technical replicate with .01% and .1%? it would be nice to quantitate the background noise at different lysis conditions. i don't think mtDNA contamination per se would change your signal to noise ratio but the changing lysis conditions might.

    as for primary cells, we have had some experience working with blood cell types and our results are generally similar to what the original ATAC-seq paper reported in T cells. so as far as we know, the protocol works just fine in primary cells.

    ~jimmie

    Leave a comment:


  • Jubs
    replied
    Hi everyone,
    Well, I have finally managed to get my 1st ATAC sequenced and analysed. I'm not working with cell lines, so I have yet another black box here which is dealing with frozen tissue - cell/nuclei integrity, quality of the tissue, time which it had to wait until it was frozen, defreezing, etc.

    Anyway, after playing with different buffers/spinning/washing/incubation time/enzyme concentration, I gave up and basically followed the published protocol.
    Actually, I found that 0,1% detergent in the lysis buffer was too much, so I went down to 0,01% (the background was too high otherwise, meaning there was an uniform smear in the gel and I wasn't getting any qPCR enrichment for my controls).

    After analysing the seqs, I saw that mtDNA contamination was really low (1%), but the noise was also high, i.e., some of the "peaks" were faded out in the background - or at least not so sharp as DNAse peaks, which I was using for comparison.
    (Also, PCR duplicates were really low, so that wasn't a problem for me.)

    I have the feeling that the less mtDNA in the sample, the higher the noise. Maybe if one is too harsh when isolating nuclei, that ends up killing all mitochondria, the nuclei also get disrupted somehow and then more chromatin is accessible for the enzymes... don't know, just an idea.

    For the next round I think I'll just repeat the procedure and, if I get nice qPCR enrichments, I just sequence it deeper to try to improve my signal-noise ratio.

    That's my experience up to now. If anyone has also tried it out with tissue rather than cell lines I would like to hear

    Best,
    Ju

    Leave a comment:


  • wen yuan
    replied
    Hi bysanimadhu, Thanks a lot. I have applied their forum yesterday. But until now no response yet. Anyway thank you very much.
    Originally posted by bysanimadhu View Post
    Hi, please join in the ATAC-Seq forum. Its maintaining by the Greenleaf lab. You can find many things including the detailed protocol. Here is the link for the forum. https://sites.google.com/site/atacseqpublic/.

    Leave a comment:


  • bysanimadhu
    replied
    Hi, please join in the ATAC-Seq forum. Its maintaining by the Greenleaf lab. You can find many things including the detailed protocol. Here is the link for the forum. https://sites.google.com/site/atacseqpublic/.

    Originally posted by wen yuan View Post
    Hi bysanimadhu,

    Do you have more detailed protocol for ATAC-seq? I can not fully understand their protocol in their nature methods.

    Leave a comment:


  • wen yuan
    replied
    Hi bysanimadhu,

    Do you have more detailed protocol for ATAC-seq? I can not fully understand their protocol in their nature methods.

    Originally posted by bysanimadhu View Post
    hi,
    Can anyone have updated protocol for ATAC-seq. It seems all of you have the problem with mitochondrial DNA contamination? Did you able to get rid of this in the later experiments. May I know which cells you are using?

    Leave a comment:


  • bysanimadhu
    replied
    hi,
    Can anyone have updated protocol for ATAC-seq. It seems all of you have the problem with mitochondrial DNA contamination? Did you able to get rid of this in the later experiments. May I know which cells you are using?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sir Ranzelot
    replied
    Hi everyone,
    I have the same problem with up to 60% of the reads mapping to mitochondria. In my case, almost all of the PCR duplicates come from this source- reads mapping to the "normal" chromosomes do not have many duplicates, meaning when I could remove mitoDNA I would also get rid of PCR duplicates.
    In general ATAC-seq worked straightforward with PBMCs. There, the libraries did show kind of a nucleosome "ladder" from the tagmentation. With different cell lines I do not see such a nice "ladder" as in the libraries prepared from PBMC ATAC-seq. I tried different cell numbers and lysis buffers, but results do not improve much. Was anyone more successful in removing mitochondria reads and making nice libraries?
    Thanks a lot

    Leave a comment:


  • wjyzidane
    replied
    Originally posted by Jubs View Post
    Hi Jimmie and doc2r,

    I'm about to try this method also and I'm glad I found this thread in time. Did you have any success in cleaning up for mtDNA? Or did the authors gave any suggestions?

    For now I'm considering a double-wash on the nuclei and qPCR for mtDNA sequences to see how enriched they are in relation to the rest. That should give an idea on how many washes are needed to get rid of most mtDNA and, most importantly, how much of the good stuff I lose when washing more than once.

    When analyzing their original data I also found the 60% of the reads mapping to chrM, which reduces a lot the amount of reads that are actually usable. Funny they don't mention this in the paper...

    Our sequencing facility experts said that use of biotin probes for getting rid of ribosomal dna would not be so straightforward because smaller genDNA fragments would also get pulled down... but I never tried this before so I wouldn't know how they would actually behave.

    Thanks!
    Hi Jubs,

    I am wondering how many cells you are using for atac-seq, because if the cell number is limited, double wash would lead to loss of cell easily.

    Jingyi

    Leave a comment:

Latest Articles

Collapse

  • seqadmin
    The Impact of AI in Genomic Medicine
    by seqadmin



    Artificial intelligence (AI) has evolved from a futuristic vision to a mainstream technology, highlighted by the introduction of tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini. In recent years, AI has become increasingly integrated into the field of genomics. This integration has enabled new scientific discoveries while simultaneously raising important ethical questions1. Interviews with two researchers at the center of this intersection provide insightful perspectives into...
    02-26-2024, 02:07 PM
  • seqadmin
    Multiomics Techniques Advancing Disease Research
    by seqadmin


    New and advanced multiomics tools and technologies have opened new avenues of research and markedly enhanced various disciplines such as disease research and precision medicine1. The practice of merging diverse data from various ‘omes increasingly provides a more holistic understanding of biological systems. As Maddison Masaeli, Co-Founder and CEO at Deepcell, aptly noted, “You can't explain biology in its complex form with one modality.”

    A major leap in the field has
    ...
    02-08-2024, 06:33 AM

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, 02-28-2024, 06:12 AM
0 responses
26 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 02-23-2024, 04:11 PM
0 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 02-21-2024, 08:52 AM
0 responses
81 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 02-20-2024, 08:57 AM
0 responses
69 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X