Comparison of library preparation methods reveals their impact on interpretation of metatranscriptomic data

Abstract

BackgroundMetatranscriptomics is rapidly expanding our knowledge of gene expression patterns and pathway dynamics in natural microbial communities. However, to cope with the challenges of environmental sampling, various rRNA removal and cDNA synthesis methods have been applied in published microbial metatranscriptomic studies, making comparisons arduous. Whereas efficiency and biases introduced by rRNA removal methods have been relatively well explored, the impact of cDNA synthesis and library preparation on transcript abundance remains poorly characterized. The evaluation of potential biases introduced at this step is challenging for metatranscriptomic samples, where data analyses are complex, for example because of the lack of reference genomes.ResultsHerein, we tested four cDNA synthesis and Illumina library preparation protocols on a simplified mixture of total RNA extracted from four bacterial species. In parallel, RNA from each microbe was tested individually. cDNA synthesis was performed on rRNA depleted samples using the TruSeq Stranded Total RNA Library Preparation, the SMARTer Stranded RNA-Seq, or the Ovation RNA-Seq V2 System. A fourth experiment was made directly from total RNA using the Encore Complete Prokaryotic RNA-Seq. The obtained sequencing data were analyzed for: library complexity and reproducibility; rRNA removal efficiency and bias; the number of genes detected; coverage uniformity; and the impact of protocols on expression biases. Significant variations, especially in organism representation and gene expression patterns, were observed among the four methods. TruSeq generally performed best, but is limited by its requirement of hundreds of nanograms of total RNA. The SMARTer method appears the best solution for smaller amounts of input RNA. For very low amounts of RNA, the Ovation System provides the only option; however, the observed biases emphasized its limitations for quantitative analyses.ConclusionscDNA and library preparation methods may affect the outcome and interpretation of metatranscriptomic data. The most appropriate method should be chosen based on the available quantity of input RNA and the quantitative or non-quantitative objectives of the study. When low amounts of RNA are available, as in most metatranscriptomic studies, the SMARTer method seems to be the best compromise to obtain reliable results. This study emphasized the difficulty in comparing metatranscriptomic studies performed using different methods.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-912) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ecogenomics and potential biogeochemical impacts of globally abundant ocean viruses

“…Briefly, For 0.2-1.6 and 0.22-3µm filters, bacterial rRNA depletion was carried out on 240-500 ng total RNA using Ribo-Zero Magnetic Kit for Bacteria (Epicentre, Madison, WI). The Ribo-Zero depletion protocol was modified to be adapted to low RNA input amounts 92 . Depleted RNA was used to synthetize cDNA with SMARTer Stranded RNA-Seq Kit (Clontech, Mountain View, CA) 92 .…”

“…The Ribo-Zero depletion protocol was modified to be adapted to low RNA input amounts 92 . Depleted RNA was used to synthetize cDNA with SMARTer Stranded RNA-Seq Kit (Clontech, Mountain View, CA) 92 . Metatranscriptomic libraries were quantified by qPCR using the KAPA Library Quantification Kit for Illumina Libraries (KapaBiosystems, Wilmington, MA) and library profiles were assessed using the DNA High Sensitivity LabChip kit on an Agilent Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA).…”

Next-Generation Sequencing for Pathogen Detection and Identification

“…First is the lack of standards in terms of protocols, reagent choice, and what constitutes a positive or negative result. For instance, there are a myriad of choices in terms of sample preparation kits and protocols, and the choice can influence pathogen detection (Alberti et al, 2014). Although nucleic acid extraction methods can introduce bias in metagenomic sequencing (Carrigg et al, 2007;Delmont et al, 2011;Kennedy et al, 2014;Ó Cuív et al, 2011), there are currently no standards in terms of which methods should be applied to which sample types.…”

Caracterização das bases moleculares da suscetibilidade imunológica à infecção por Candida albicans

“…Cada tipo celular permanece por várias gerações, e embora a mudança entre estes pareça estocástica, alguns eventos ambientais podem aumentar a frequência da mudança (Alby and Bennett, 2009).…”

“…Entretanto, essa técnica também permite a avaliação de outros tipos de RNAs, como rRNA, tRNAs, miRNAs e outros (Ingolia et al, 2012). O objetivos do pesquisador ao idealizar o experimento determinará as etapas de um experimento deste tipo (Alberti et al, 2014). Uma vez que que o RNA de uma determinada condição experimental for obtido deve se proceder com a preparação de biblioteca .…”