Showing posts with label transcriptomics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transcriptomics. Show all posts

Monday, 12 December 2011

How much coverage / throughput for my RNA-seq?

One of the earliest questions to bug anyone planning an RNA-seq experiment has to be the throughput (how many reads do I need?)

If you are dealing with human samples, you have the benefit of extensive publications with example coverages and some papers that test the limits of detection. All of this info is nicely summarised here in experimental design considerations in RNA-Seq.

Bashir et al. have  concluded that more than 90% of the transcripts in human samples are adequately covered with just one million  sequence reads.  Wang et al. showed that 8 million reads are sufficient to reach RNA-Seq saturation for most  samples

The ENCODE consortium also has published a Guidelines for Experiments within you can read RNA Standards v1.0 (May 2011) and also RNA-seq Best Practices (2009)


Experiments whose purpose is to evaluate the similarity between the
transcriptional profiles of two polyA+ samples may require only modest depths of
sequencing (e.g. 30M pair-end reads of length > 30NT, of which 20-25M are
mappable to the genome or known transcriptome, Experiments whose purpose is
discovery of novel transcribed elements and strong quantification of known
transcript isoforms requires more extensive sequencing. The ability to detect
reliably low copy number transcripts/isoforms depends upon the depth of
sequencing and on a sufficiently complex library.


RNA-seq blog also covers this issue in How Many Reads are Enough? Where they cited an article on RNA-seq in chicken lungs

The analysis from the current study demonstrated that 30 M (75 bp) reads is sufficient to detect all annotated genes in chicken lungs. Ten million (75 bp) reads could detect about 80% of annotated chicken genes.

There are also papers that showed that RNA-seq gives reproducible results when sequenced from the same RNA-seq library which means that if coverage isn't enough, it is possible to sequence more using the same library and not have it affect your results. The real issue then becomes whether  you have planned for additional sequencing with your budget.



References
Au, K.F., Jiang, H., Lin, L., Xing, Y. & Wong, W.H. Detection of splice junctions from paired-end RNA-seq data by  SpliceMap. Nucleic acids research 38, 4570-4578 (2010).

Maher, C.A., Palanisamy, N., Brenner, J.C., Cao, X., Kalyana-Sundaram, S., Luo, S., Khrebtukova, I., Barrette, T.R.,  Grasso, C., Yu, J., Lonigro, R.J., Schroth, G., Kumar-Sinha, C. & Chinnaiyan, A.M. Chimeric transcript discovery by  paired-end transcriptome sequencing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America   106, 12353-12358 (2009).

Bashir, A., Bansal, V. & Bafna, V. Designing deep sequencing experiments: detecting structural variation and estimating  transcript abundance. BMC genomics 11, 385 (2010).

Wang, Z., Gerstein, M. & Snyder, M. RNA-Seq: a revolutionary tool for transcriptomics. Nature reviews 10, 57-63 (2009).


Wang Y, Ghaffari N, Johnson CD, Braga-Neto UM, Wang H, Chen R, Zhou H. (2011) Evaluation of the coverage and depth of transcriptome by RNA-Seq in chickens. BMC Bioinformatics Proceedings of the Eighth Annual MCBIOS Conference. Computational Biology and Bioinformatics for a New Decade, College Station, TX, USA. 1-2 April 2011. [article

Monday, 6 June 2011

Technical variability is too high to ignore | RNA-Seq Blog

ok this disturbing.
Will research more given time.
Technical variability is too high to ignore. Technical variability results in inconsistent detection of exons at low levels of coverage. Further, the estimate of the relative abundance of a transcript can substantially disagree, even when coverage levels are high. This may be due to the low sampling fraction and if so, it will persist as an issue needing to be addressed in experimental design even as the next wave of technology produces larger numbers of reads. Practical recommendations for dealing with the technical variability, without dramatic cost increases are provided. McIntyre, LM et. al. (2001) RNA-seq : technical variability and sampling. BMC Genomics [Epub ahead of print]. [article]
http://rna-seqblog.com/publications/technical-variability-is-too-high-to-ignore/

RNA-seq : technical variability and sampling.

BMC Genomics. 2011 Jun 6;12(1):293. [Epub ahead of print]

RNA-seq : technical variability and sampling.

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND:

RNA-seq is revolutionizing the way we study transcriptomes. mRNA can be surveyed without prior knowledge of gene transcripts. Alternative splicing of transcript isoforms and the identification of previously unknown exons are being reported. Initial reports of differences in exon usage, and splicing between samples as well as quantitative differences among samples are beginning to surface. Biological variation has been reported to be larger than technical variation. In addition, technical variation has been reported to be in line with expectations due to random sampling. However, strategies for dealing with technical variation will differ depending on the magnitude. The size of technical variance, and the role of sampling are examined in this manuscript.

RESULTS:

In this study three independent Solexa/Illumina experiments containing technical replicates are analyzed. When coverage is low, large disagreements between technical replicates are apparent. Exon detection between technical replicates is highly variable when the coverage is less than 5 reads per nucleotide and estimates of gene expression are more likely to disagree when coverage is low. Although large disagreements in the estimates of expression are observed at all levels of coverage.

CONCLUSIONS:

Technical variability is too high to ignore. Technical variability results in inconsistent detection of exons at low levels of coverage. Further, the estimate of the relative abundance of a transcript can substantially disagree, even when coverage levels are high. This may be due to the low sampling fraction and if so, it will persist as an issue needing to be addressed in experimental design even as the next wave of technology produces larger numbers of reads. We provide practical recommendations for dealing with the technical variability, without dramatic cost increases.
PMID:
21645359
[PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Friday, 8 October 2010

small RNA analysis for SOLiD data

SOLiD™ System Small RNA Analysis Pipeline Tool (RNA2MAP) is being released as "unsupported software" by Applied Biosystems.
see http://solidsoftwaretools.com/gf/project/rna2map/

It failed for me at just simply producing the silly PBS scripts to run the analysis. I was advised to run it in another linux server to try by dumb luck :(
I found example scripts but documentation is brief. Not sure if it's worth the hassle to debug the collection of perl scripts or to manually edit the params in the PBS submission scripts for a tool that is not commonly used.

How are you analysing your small RNA SOlid reads? any software to recommend?
http://seqanswers.com/wiki/MirTools is for 454 and Illumina
Partek Genomics Suite is commercial

the other two at listed at seqanswers wiki
doesn't seem to be for solid as well.

Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Coral Transcriptomics-a budget NGS approach?

Was surprised I didn't blog about this earlier.
Dr Mikhail Matz is a researcher in the field of coral genomics. His approach to doing de novo transcriptomics for an organism whose genome is unavailable.


his compute cluster is basically
"two Dell PowerEdge 1900 servers joined together with ROCKS clustering software v5.0. Each server had: two Intel Quad Core E5345 (2.33 Ghz, 1333 Mhz FSB, 2x4MB L2 Cache) CPU’s and 16 GB of 667 Mhz DDR2 RAM. The cluster had a combined total of 580 GB disk space."




Tools used are
- Blast executables from NCBI, including blast, blastcl3, and blastclust
- Washington University blast (Wu-blast)
- ESTate sequence clustering software
- Perl

He admits that the assembled transcriptome might be incomplete (~40,000 contigs with five-fold average sequencing see Figure 2 for the size distribution of the assembled contigs
But it is "good enough" to use as a reference transcriptome to align SOLiD reads accurately and to generate the coverage that 454 can't give for the same amount of grant money.

the results are published in BMC Genomics

Not sure if you have heard of just in time inventory. But I think "good enough" science takes a bit of dare to spend that money to ask those what-ifs.


Datanami, Woe be me