Systematic comparison of small RNA library preparation protocols for next-generation sequencing.

BMC Genomics

Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, UMR9198, CNRS CEA Univ Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 9198, Gif sur Yvette Cedex, France.

Published: February 2018

AI Article Synopsis

  • Next-generation sequencing has changed how researchers study small RNAs (sRNAs), but traditional preparation methods can skew results, especially during the adapter ligation process.
  • The presence of a 2'-O-methyl modification on some sRNAs complicates the ligation and library prep process, leading to various preparation kits being evaluated for their effectiveness in detecting these modified RNAs.
  • Among the five tested kits, the SMARTer and CATS had less bias but struggled with biological samples, while NEXTflex was effective in detecting more miRNAs; modifications to the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols enhanced their performance for 2' OMe RNAs.

Article Abstract

Background: Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized the study of small RNAs (sRNAs) on a genome-wide scale. However, classical sRNA library preparation methods introduce serious bias, mainly during adapter ligation steps. Several types of sRNA including plant microRNAs (miRNA), piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNA) in insects, nematodes and mammals, and small interfering RNAs (siRNA) in insects and plants contain a 2'-O-methyl (2'-OMe) modification at their 3' terminal nucleotide. This inhibits 3' adapter ligation and makes library preparation particularly challenging. To reduce bias, the NEBNext kit (New England Biolabs) uses polyethylene glycol (PEG), the NEXTflex V2 kit (BIOO Scientific) uses both randomised adapters and PEG, and the novel SMARTer (Clontech) and CATS (Diagenode) kits avoid ligation altogether. Here we compared these methods with Illumina's classical TruSeq protocol regarding the detection of normal and 2' OMe RNAs. In addition, we modified the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols to identify conditions that improve performance.

Results: Among the five kits tested with their respective standard protocols, the SMARTer and CATS kits had the lowest levels of bias but also had a strong formation of side products, and as a result performed relatively poorly with biological samples; NEXTflex detected the largest numbers of different miRNAs. The use of a novel type of randomised adapters called MidRand-Like (MRL) adapters and PEG improved the detection of 2' OMe RNAs both in the TruSeq as well as in the NEXTflex protocol.

Conclusions: While it is commonly accepted that biases in sRNA library preparation protocols are mainly due to adapter ligation steps, the ligation-free protocols were not the best performing methods. Our modified versions of the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols provide an improved tool for the study of 2' OMe RNAs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5799908PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4491-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

library preparation
16
adapter ligation
12
ome rnas
12
preparation protocols
8
next-generation sequencing
8
srna library
8
ligation steps
8
randomised adapters
8
adapters peg
8
truseq nextflex
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!