Originally posted by Simone78
View Post
Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
-
-
More Bioanalyzer oddities
Originally posted by Simone78 View PostBoth after the first (pre-ampl after RT) and the second (enrichment PCR after tagmentation) PCR you should check your library on the Bioanalyzer. The first time to see you got cDNA and it is worth continuing.
Thank you for all of your valuable insight. It is very helpful. Have you seen anything like the attached bioanalyzer result previously? I thought perhaps contamination but I am surprised it is in all of the samples. Each sample is from 1-3 picked neurons, each from different animals, and some on different days. I ran 22 cycles for the PCR (attempting to compensate for the suboptimal ripping cells from their axons) and thought perhaps it is over-amplification. It also seems that each peak is ~1.8x the size of the previous large peak (295, 527, 938/941, 1728). Any thoughts?
Thank you,
bagnall.labAttached Files
Comment
-
Originally posted by bagnall.lab View PostHi Simone,
Thank you for all of your valuable insight. It is very helpful. Have you seen anything like the attached bioanalyzer result previously? I thought perhaps contamination but I am surprised it is in all of the samples. Each sample is from 1-3 picked neurons, each from different animals, and some on different days. I ran 22 cycles for the PCR (attempting to compensate for the suboptimal ripping cells from their axons) and thought perhaps it is over-amplification. It also seems that each peak is ~1.8x the size of the previous large peak (295, 527, 938/941, 1728). Any thoughts?
Thank you,
bagnall.lab
Best,
Simone
Comment
-
Originally posted by Simone78 View Postunfortunately I haven´t seen such a pattern before. We do have sometimes strange peaks but they are mostly only one per sample. In that case it is usually due to a specific transcript that is picked up during the RT and/or PCR (it is an artifact). Have you tried to sequence some of these samples? You should get hundreds of thousands or million reads from the same transcript/region if your case is similar to mine.
Best,
Simone
I am wondering if you could help me take a quick look at our first trial of cDNA library, with bioanalyzer results attached in the figure. Sample 1-6 are single-cell samples, while sample 7-11 are negative controls (not just water, it is a mimic of the entire cell-pick-up procedure, except picking-up a real cell). I could tell they are not good libraries, and I thought the main problem is RNA degradation during sample harvest; in addition, our facility director suggests the primer-dimers could be another issue. I am wondering what is you opinions on these results.
By the way, here we use 5'-biotin blocked primers, so the TSO concatamers should not be an issue; but do you think we should seek to reduce the primer-dimers? By reducing ISPCR primer concentration? Or do something with beads purification?
Other than trying to better protect our single-cell sample from RNA degradation, do you think increasing preamplification PCR cycles could help? Right now we used 20 cycles; and I think you mentioned earlier you used 22 cycles for T-cells.
Any suggestion is appreciated. Thank you so much!
Best
AlexAttached Files
Comment
-
I have another naive question: for bioanalyzer check, it is really necessary to purify the DNA after PCR preamplification? I got the answer "yes" from both Aligent tech support and our facility director; however, it seems someone in this threads series did mention they did not purify the PCR product before bioanalyzer. It is not a big issue, but I just want to save some time (and beads) while optimizing the protocol. Thanks a lot!
Comment
-
Originally posted by wishingfly View PostI have another naive question: for bioanalyzer check, it is really necessary to purify the DNA after PCR preamplification? I got the answer "yes" from both Aligent tech support and our facility director; however, it seems someone in this threads series did mention they did not purify the PCR product before bioanalyzer. It is not a big issue, but I just want to save some time (and beads) while optimizing the protocol. Thanks a lot!
Comment
-
Originally posted by wishingfly View PostI have another naive question: for bioanalyzer check, it is really necessary to purify the DNA after PCR preamplification? I got the answer "yes" from both Aligent tech support and our facility director; however, it seems someone in this threads series did mention they did not purify the PCR product before bioanalyzer. It is not a big issue, but I just want to save some time (and beads) while optimizing the protocol. Thanks a lot!
Comment
-
Originally posted by wishingfly View PostHi Simone and other colleagues,
I am wondering if you could help me take a quick look at our first trial of cDNA library, with bioanalyzer results attached in the figure. Sample 1-6 are single-cell samples, while sample 7-11 are negative controls (not just water, it is a mimic of the entire cell-pick-up procedure, except picking-up a real cell). I could tell they are not good libraries, and I thought the main problem is RNA degradation during sample harvest; in addition, our facility director suggests the primer-dimers could be another issue. I am wondering what is you opinions on these results.
By the way, here we use 5'-biotin blocked primers, so the TSO concatamers should not be an issue; but do you think we should seek to reduce the primer-dimers? By reducing ISPCR primer concentration? Or do something with beads purification?
Other than trying to better protect our single-cell sample from RNA degradation, do you think increasing preamplification PCR cycles could help? Right now we used 20 cycles; and I think you mentioned earlier you used 22 cycles for T-cells.
Any suggestion is appreciated. Thank you so much!
Best
Alex
How long does it take to get the cells ready for picking? Do you freeze the cells immediately after picking? Do you work in a clean environment (hood/clean room)? Have you tried to run a positive control (10-20 pg of good-quality tot RNA)? If also the RNA looks like that, then the problem is somehow in how you handle the samples (or in some reagents). I hope you can find the source of the problem!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Simone78 View PostIndeed it looks degraded. Increasing the number of cycles won´t help. there must be something else during the sample preparation and before the sorting/picking that degrades the cell. It might also be that you have some kind of contamination going on. My negative controls (just water instead of the cell) look flat, except from some (unused) primers that are not removed with the bead purification.
How long does it take to get the cells ready for picking? Do you freeze the cells immediately after picking? Do you work in a clean environment (hood/clean room)? Have you tried to run a positive control (10-20 pg of good-quality tot RNA)? If also the RNA looks like that, then the problem is somehow in how you handle the samples (or in some reagents). I hope you can find the source of the problem!
Based on the current result, do you think the primer dimers is an issue as well? Would you mind posting your bioanalyzer traces before and after purification, so that we could get an idea of what does it looks like when primer dimers dominate? Thanks a lot!
Comment
-
Originally posted by wishingfly View PostHi Simone and other colleagues,
I am wondering if you could help me take a quick look at our first trial of cDNA library, with bioanalyzer results attached in the figure. Sample 1-6 are single-cell samples, while sample 7-11 are negative controls (not just water, it is a mimic of the entire cell-pick-up procedure, except picking-up a real cell). I could tell they are not good libraries, and I thought the main problem is RNA degradation during sample harvest; in addition, our facility director suggests the primer-dimers could be another issue. I am wondering what is you opinions on these results.
By the way, here we use 5'-biotin blocked primers, so the TSO concatamers should not be an issue; but do you think we should seek to reduce the primer-dimers? By reducing ISPCR primer concentration? Or do something with beads purification?
Other than trying to better protect our single-cell sample from RNA degradation, do you think increasing preamplification PCR cycles could help? Right now we used 20 cycles; and I think you mentioned earlier you used 22 cycles for T-cells.
Any suggestion is appreciated. Thank you so much!
Best
Alex
We have been doing SmartSeq2 with good results for about a year. Then about two months ago our amplified cDNAs started looking terrible. Our background looks exact same as yours (see attachment). We’ve spent the last month or so trying to sort out the problem, and in the process have replaced every single reagent about 2 times now. We believe the contamination is bacterial RNA in SuperScriptII. The reason we believe this is: 1) those peaks are reproducible and show up in water only samples (quite strongly), 2) we do not see those peaks if we omit the SuperScript2 enzyme (so they aren’t an amplifiable DNA contaminant), 3) we do not see any background peaks if we use an old aliquot of SuperScript2 (see attachment) and 4) we don’t see those peaks if we use SuperScript3 or ProtoScriptII. We have also sequenced a water control on the MiSeq and the top reads map to bacteria.
We have spent a fair amount of time talking to Life Tech about this problem, have tried several new batches of enzymes they sent to us, but all had this background contamination. So our solution has been to go with ProtoScriptII from NEB. I don’t like switching enzymes but this was the only way we were able to get rid of the contamination and maintain consistent-looking amplified cDNA. We looked at SuperScript3, but its amplified cDNA looks quite a bit different from SuperScript2 cDNA with one very prominent peak. ProtoScriptII amplified cDNA looks very much like SuperScript2 libraries, and we will compare the two enzymes using standard control RNA (don’t have this data yet).
This problem was a serious setback for us and we lost precious samples and time getting through it. I’d be interested in knowing if others have experienced this problem and what their work around was.
Good luck.Attached Files
Comment
-
Originally posted by bplevi View PostHi Alex and Bagnall.lab,
We have been doing SmartSeq2 with good results for about a year. Then about two months ago our amplified cDNAs started looking terrible. Our background looks exact same as yours (see attachment). We’ve spent the last month or so trying to sort out the problem, and in the process have replaced every single reagent about 2 times now. We believe the contamination is bacterial RNA in SuperScriptII. The reason we believe this is: 1) those peaks are reproducible and show up in water only samples (quite strongly), 2) we do not see those peaks if we omit the SuperScript2 enzyme (so they aren’t an amplifiable DNA contaminant), 3) we do not see any background peaks if we use an old aliquot of SuperScript2 (see attachment) and 4) we don’t see those peaks if we use SuperScript3 or ProtoScriptII. We have also sequenced a water control on the MiSeq and the top reads map to bacteria.
We have spent a fair amount of time talking to Life Tech about this problem, have tried several new batches of enzymes they sent to us, but all had this background contamination. So our solution has been to go with ProtoScriptII from NEB. I don’t like switching enzymes but this was the only way we were able to get rid of the contamination and maintain consistent-looking amplified cDNA. We looked at SuperScript3, but its amplified cDNA looks quite a bit different from SuperScript2 cDNA with one very prominent peak. ProtoScriptII amplified cDNA looks very much like SuperScript2 libraries, and we will compare the two enzymes using standard control RNA (don’t have this data yet).
This problem was a serious setback for us and we lost precious samples and time getting through it. I’d be interested in knowing if others have experienced this problem and what their work around was.
Good luck.
Thank you for your timely input! I was astonished that I did not expect the problem could be the contamination of RTase. In my first trial, the negative controls are not pure water, rather they are the pipet solution that mimic exactly the same procedure of cell harvest, so originally I thought maybe I picked up some free RNA in the tissue culture media. Now it seems the contamination could come from the enzyme. Today I did another batch of negative controls with pure water, and fortunately we also have some old SuperScript II, so I did a parallel compare between old vs. new enzyme; I will keep you updated when the bioanalyzer results are ready.
As to the alternative of SuperScript II, if we don't trust it any longer, do you suggest using ProtoScript II from NEB? It sounds like you are going to try, but have not done yet? Have you considered switching to SuperScript IV? Simone mentioned in previous threads it works fine, so I am thinking if SuperScript II is no longer reliable, whether we should switch to other options right now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by wishingfly View PostThank you for your suggestion. I agree with you that the RNA degradation is the major issue we should overcome in the next step; we did have positive controls, but the samples will be processed and subject to bioanalyzer today, on Friday the equipment was so busy that we only have time for 1 chip.
Based on the current result, do you think the primer dimers is an issue as well? Would you mind posting your bioanalyzer traces before and after purification, so that we could get an idea of what does it looks like when primer dimers dominate? Thanks a lot!
Please find attached a test (using tot RNA, not cells) of the difference between pre-amplified cDNA before and after bead purification. Samples were either purified manually or with a robot (even if it didn´t go very well in this case, for some reasons).
Now the dilemma is the following: skipping bead purification doesn´t remove the leftover adaptors, that can thus be tagmented (they will) and end up in your final library and then in your final data.
On the other hand, doing bead purification gives a nice and clean prep but you will go crazy with the purifications, especially if you have thousands of samples to process...and even if you use a liquid handling robot (I do, right now).
In conclusion, I tend to prefer the first solution (no purification).
If you then want more data from each cell just pool less or resequence the pool. But that´s just an idea, I haven´t really done it yet.Last edited by Simone78; 08-24-2017, 05:42 AM.
Comment
-
Hi everyone,
I would like to update my evidence of possible contamination of SuperScript II from Invitrogen, as you can see from the attached figure, we compared the new order (placed in May 2015) vs. an old stock (ordered years ago); the only difference is the enzyme by itself, we use the same (new) first strand buffer, DTT and RNaseOUT. We have 3 replicates in each condition; negative controls are RNA free water, and positive controls are 10 pg standard RNA. Considering other users, such as "bplevi", also report exactly the same problem, we have reason to believe the pipeline of this product from Invitrogen is contaminated, and it is unlikely to be resolved by simply order a new pack.
So I think we should seek for alternatives. "bplevi" suggested the Protoscript II from NEB; if any of you tried it out, could you give us some feedback on how it works? How about other options, such as SuperScript IV?
Thanks a lot!
AlexAttached Files
Comment
-
Which is the lot number of the "bad" SSRT II? We are running out of the old one and now I´m a bit concerned...
btw, Protoscript II worked ok in my hands (not impressed, though), but Superscript II was clearly better. As alternative I would suggest to use PrimeScript from Clontech, also a MMLV-based RT.
Comment
Latest Articles
Collapse
-
by seqadmin
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) are essential techniques for investigating the genome, transcriptome, and epigenome. In many cases, choosing the appropriate technique is straightforward, but in others, it can be more challenging to determine the most effective option. A simple distinction is that smaller, more focused projects are typically better suited for qPCR, while larger, more complex datasets benefit from NGS. However,...-
Channel: Articles
10-18-2024, 07:11 AM -
-
by seqadmin
Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) do not code for proteins but play important roles in numerous cellular processes including gene silencing, developmental pathways, and more. There are numerous types including microRNA (miRNA), long ncRNA (lncRNA), circular RNA (circRNA), and more. In this article, we discuss innovative ncRNA research and explore recent technological advancements that improve the study of ncRNAs.
Nobel Prize for MicroRNA Discovery
This week,...-
Channel: Articles
10-07-2024, 08:07 AM -
ad_right_rmr
Collapse
News
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
New Model Aims to Explain Polygenic Diseases by Connecting Genomic Mutations and Regulatory Networks
by seqadmin
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 05:31 AM
|
0 responses
10 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
Yesterday, 05:31 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 10-24-2024, 06:58 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
10-24-2024, 06:58 AM
|
||
New AI Model Designs Synthetic DNA Switches for Targeted Gene Expression in Specific Cell Types
by seqadmin
Started by seqadmin, 10-23-2024, 08:43 AM
|
0 responses
50 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
10-23-2024, 08:43 AM
|
||
Started by seqadmin, 10-17-2024, 07:29 AM
|
0 responses
58 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seqadmin
10-17-2024, 07:29 AM
|
Comment