Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • obig
    Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 12

    RNA-seq technical replicates at library construction level

    I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere but I can't find it. The forum and literature are full of analyzes that have looked at technical replicates in RNAseq where the same library is sequenced multiple times (on different lanes or flowcells). And, generally very high correlations are reported (~0.95 to 0.99). But, I can find no discussion of the concordance between technical replicates (exact same biological sample) where for each replicate a new library is constructed. For example, suppose you have cell culture, split into three plates, grow up, extract RNA, and then go through identical library construction for each, and sequence independently. Does anyone have experience with this?
    Last edited by obig; 01-13-2011, 08:33 PM.
  • obig
    Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 12

    #2
    Here is what Marioni et al (2008; Genome Research. 18(9):1509-17) have to say on the topic in their paper RNA-seq: an assessment of technical reproducibility and comparison with gene expression arrays.

    "We note that our study design did not include replicates of the processing step of the Illumina sequencing library. As equivalent processing steps for microarrays (i.e., fragmentation and amplification) result in the introduction of very little technical variance, we expected that rather than the processing of the library, sequencing over different lanes and flow-cells would introduce most of the technical variance associated with Illumina sequencing. However, given our observation that very little technical variance is associated with sequencing in different lanes or plates, the variance introduced in the library processing step may contribute a nontrivial proportion of the total technical variance associated with the sequencing technology."

    They seem to suggest that it is overall a minor issue. And, my gut tends to agree. But, it would be nice if someone has actually proved it.

    Comment

    • Veleno
      Member
      • Aug 2011
      • 16

      #3
      Variation is introduced by the operator at this stage, so as long as the same person handle the library making it should be reduced to a minimum.

      Comment

      • Simon Anders
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 995

        #4
        The very first paper on RNA-Seq, the one by Nagalakshmi et al.., did that. Since then, people seem to have forgotten about it, although you are right that it can be very informative. Especially when proposing a new library prep protocol, the obvious thing to do would be to perform the protocol several times on the same biological material to prove that the protocol is stable and reproducible. Surprisingly, referees don't seem to insist on this.

        Comment

        • pmiguel
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2008
          • 2328

          #5
          Your biological replicates are pre-library, and therefore include all the library construction variation. So, if you think about it, the only advantage you gain from doing the library technical replicates, is the ability to identify where a high sample variance derives. This is useful information if your assay has failed to detect differences between treatment/conditions for lack of statistical power due to high inter-sample variance. But making libraries is still expensive. Hence adding technical replicates at this stage still costs too much to be reasonable.

          My guess would be that most of the technical variation in library construction would arise when sample or processing issues cause a bottleneck in the percent of molecules converted to library molecules. PCR tends to "paper over" issues involving low input, so the "enrichment" step tends to mask issues of this sort. Much better if your library construction fails altogether when sample or processing issues cause very low yields at a given step.

          --
          Phillip

          Comment

          • Simon Anders
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2010
            • 995

            #6
            Just to be clear: I don't suggest to use library-prep replicates for biological experiments -- only for benchmarking new protocols.

            Comment

            • davisc
              Member
              • Oct 2008
              • 14

              #7
              We have a lot of experience with this from the work we have done with ENCODE RNA-Seq. You can assess yourself directly from the results if you would like. Download the K562 Poly-A+ data from UCSC:



              For this experiment, we took 2 vials of K562 (same lot#, same donor) thawed them and cultured them independently, isolated RNA and made 2 separate libraries (we refer to these as biological replicates). Each library was sequenced on 3 lanes of GAIIx (technical replicates). I believe, the FASTQ's from the 3 lanes were merged into a final dataset for each replicate but you should be able to uncouple them using the flowcell_lane in the header. Compute FPKMs for (1) each lane within a single library and (2) lanes between biological replicates and compare the Spearman values.

              Incidentally, if you want to know what the variation between 2 individuals/genomes/donors but the same cell type, i.e. skeletal muscle cell that data is also available. Download the SkMC cell line data, there are 2 replicates there are they come from 2 different donors.

              Comment

              • Veleno
                Member
                • Aug 2011
                • 16

                #8
                That's kind of expected, if you would have taken 2 vials of K562 from different labs you'd start to see clonal variation; if you take two primary cell types from two individuals you'll see lots of it.

                Comment

                • davisc
                  Member
                  • Oct 2008
                  • 14

                  #9
                  Yep expected, but the OP was asking for numbers. You can also obtain numbers for the scenario you propose by comparing the CalTech RNA-Seq to CSHL RNA-Seq (K562).

                  In short, after doing 100's of RNA-Seq experiments with replicates: We don't worry about lane-to-lane variation anymore.. because we observed so little compared to biological variation.

                  Comment

                  • Simon Anders
                    Senior Member
                    • Feb 2010
                    • 995

                    #10
                    You misunderstood the OP. He was not asking for variation due to sequencing on two different lanes, but due to preparing two libraries from the same material.

                    You first prepared a library, then split the library onto two lanes. You could also have split the material before library preparation to see how much noise you introduce in the library prep steps.

                    Comment

                    Latest Articles

                    Collapse

                    • seqadmin
                      Pathogen Surveillance with Advanced Genomic Tools
                      by seqadmin




                      The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for proactive pathogen surveillance systems. As ongoing threats like avian influenza and newly emerging infections continue to pose risks, researchers are working to improve how quickly and accurately pathogens can be identified and tracked. In a recent SEQanswers webinar, two experts discussed how next-generation sequencing (NGS) and machine learning are shaping efforts to monitor viral variation and trace the origins of infectious...
                      03-24-2025, 11:48 AM
                    • seqadmin
                      New Genomics Tools and Methods Shared at AGBT 2025
                      by seqadmin


                      This year’s Advances in Genome Biology and Technology (AGBT) General Meeting commemorated the 25th anniversary of the event at its original venue on Marco Island, Florida. While this year’s event didn’t include high-profile musical performances, the industry announcements and cutting-edge research still drew the attention of leading scientists.

                      The Headliner
                      The biggest announcement was Roche stepping back into the sequencing platform market. In the years since...
                      03-03-2025, 01:39 PM

                    ad_right_rmr

                    Collapse

                    News

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-20-2025, 05:03 AM
                    0 responses
                    49 views
                    0 reactions
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-19-2025, 07:27 AM
                    0 responses
                    57 views
                    0 reactions
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-18-2025, 12:50 PM
                    0 responses
                    50 views
                    0 reactions
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Started by seqadmin, 03-03-2025, 01:15 PM
                    0 responses
                    201 views
                    0 reactions
                    Last Post seqadmin  
                    Working...