Header Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

MiSeq: V1-2 vs V4 for 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

SEQanswers June Challenge Has Begun!

The competition has begun! We're giving away a $50 Amazon gift card to the member who answers the most questions on our site during the month. We want to encourage our community members to share their knowledge and help each other out by answering questions related to sequencing technologies, genomics, and bioinformatics. The competition is open to all members of the site, and the winner will be announced at the beginning of July. Best of luck!

For a list of the official rules, visit (https://www.seqanswers.com/forum/sit...wledge-and-win)
See more
See less
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brian Bushnell
    replied
    I don't think that question's been answered. But, you might want to look at this paper, which compares V4 to full-length:

    Leave a comment:


  • ymc
    replied
    Suppose I can the sequence of the full 16S gene at high accuracy, which region(s) can give me the closest discriminating power to the whole gene sequence?

    Leave a comment:


  • elizondas
    replied
    Primers and barcodes for V1-V2

    Hello,

    I was wondering whether any of you has sequenced using Illumina primers for V1-V2 region....Does anyone have a list of barcodes I could used? We need to focus on this region, since it is the best approach to identify sp within oral samples. ...

    Many thanks
    Elisa

    Leave a comment:


  • Brian Bushnell
    replied
    Originally posted by fibar View Post
    But what has happened in the field during the last year? Are there improved methods to deal with this problem?
    In fact, there IS an improved method for dealing with noise and false-positives. BBMerge has a much lower false-positive merge rate than any other overlap-based read merger, including usearch.

    Leave a comment:


  • UserChristine
    replied
    I want to sequence the V4 region using illuminas 16S metagenomic sequencing library preparation protocol (dual indexing approach using nextera indexes). Anyone have experience doing this?

    Leave a comment:


  • MadsAlbertsen
    replied
    We have been using the UPARSE workflow for some time now and are in general very happy with it (http://drive5.com/uparse/).

    Leave a comment:


  • fibar
    replied
    Hi everyone,
    I go back to Pat Schloss: http://blog.mothur.org/2014/09/11/Wh...nce-matrix%3F/
    If you don't de-noise properly (ie. fully overlapped reads), you get too many unique sequences. Hence, you end having a huge matrix downstream.

    But what has happened in the field during the last year? Are there improved methods to deal with this problem? MadsAlbertsen, which method do you use?
    Last edited by fibar; 12-15-2015, 12:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mvdg
    replied
    Microbial profiling is new to me but I understand you can now combine variable regions due to the longer read lengths on the MiSeq. Has anyone combined regions for 18S similar to 16S as described by Mads Albertsen?

    Leave a comment:


  • westerman
    replied
    I would talk to your service provider (the people doing the actual sequencing) about your problems especially in regards to the phiX.

    Leave a comment:


  • Richa Sharma
    replied
    Illumina Miseq V4-V5 16S rRNAsequencing

    Hi all,

    This is Richa. I have sent my 16s V4-V5 amplicons for sequencing with illumina MiSeq. But there is a problem. PCR fragments cluster very poorly. There are very less no. of sequences that we are receiving and 50% are phix.

    What could be the reason ? How to troubleshoot. Kindly help...!!!!


    Thanks.
    Richa

    Leave a comment:


  • rhinoceros
    replied
    Originally posted by snetmcom View Post
    Why is that the case? Is it just poor primer design?
    Something about introducing staggered adapters to deal with the low diversity of the ends. They also spike their samples with PhiX. Sorry, I don't recall the specifics. I don't personally deal with the wet part of biology much, so I leave this to those who do

    Leave a comment:


  • DRYTCYV
    replied
    And this one ? - http://supportres.illumina.com/docum...15044223-b.pdf

    V3-V4 region

    Leave a comment:


  • snetmcom
    replied
    Originally posted by rhinoceros View Post
    To everyone doing 16S with MiSeq, I very much recommend that you check JGI's related protocols. Your average 454-primers are going to introduce huge bias into 16S MiSeq sequencing, especially so while studying GC-rich communities.
    Why is that the case? Is it just poor primer design?

    Leave a comment:


  • rhinoceros
    replied
    To everyone doing 16S with MiSeq, I very much recommend that you check JGI's related protocols. Your average 454-primers are going to introduce huge bias into 16S MiSeq sequencing, especially so while studying GC-rich communities.

    Leave a comment:


  • firefly2280
    replied
    Hi,

    I know I'm late to this conversation but we had the same issues. I managed to 'borrow' some Indexed primers for V4 and for V5-7 regions and compare just a few on a small set of my samples. The V5-7 gave better results.

    I agree it's hard to know what to do and the best case scenario if you have money, sample and time is to try a few different ones! Sadly, that wasnt possible in my case but it worked out well.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Articles

Collapse

ad_right_rmr

Collapse

News

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 08:56 PM
0 responses
8 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, Yesterday, 07:33 AM
0 responses
8 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 05-31-2023, 07:50 AM
0 responses
4 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Started by seqadmin, 05-26-2023, 09:22 AM
0 responses
9 views
0 likes
Last Post seqadmin  
Working...
X