↓ Skip to main content

A comparative analysis of library prep approaches for sequencing low input translatome samples

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparative analysis of library prep approaches for sequencing low input translatome samples
Published in
BMC Genomics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-5066-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Song, Beatrice Milon, Sandra Ott, Xuechu Zhao, Lisa Sadzewicz, Amol Shetty, Erich T. Boger, Luke J. Tallon, Robert J. Morell, Anup Mahurkar, Ronna Hertzano

Abstract

Cell type-specific ribosome-pulldown has become an increasingly popular method for analysis of gene expression. It allows for expression analysis from intact tissues and monitoring of protein synthesis in vivo. However, while its utility has been assessed, technical aspects related to sequencing of these samples, often starting with a smaller amount of RNA, have not been reported. In this study, we evaluated the performance of five library prep protocols for ribosome-associated mRNAs when only 250 pg-4 ng of total RNA are used. We obtained total and RiboTag-IP RNA, in three biological replicates. We compared 5 methods of library preparation for Illumina Next Generation sequencing: NuGEN Ovation RNA-Seq system V2 Kit, TaKaRa SMARTer Stranded Total RNA-Seq Kit, TaKaRa SMART-Seq v4 Ultra Low Input RNA Kit, Illumina TruSeq RNA Library Prep Kit v2 and NEBNext® Ultra™ Directional RNA Library Prep Kit using slightly modified protocols each with 4 ng of total RNA. An additional set of samples was processed using the TruSeq kit with 70 ng, as a 'gold standard' control and the SMART-Seq v4 with 250 pg of total RNA. TruSeq-processed samples had the best metrics overall, with similar results for the 4 ng and 70 ng samples. The results of the SMART-Seq v4 processed samples were similar to TruSeq (Spearman correlation > 0.8) despite using lower amount of input RNA. All RiboTag-IP samples had an increase in the intronic reads compared with the corresponding whole tissue, suggesting that the IP captures some immature mRNAs. The SMARTer-processed samples had a higher representation of ribosomal and non-coding RNAs leading to lower representation of protein coding mRNA. The enrichment or depletion of IP samples compared to corresponding input RNA was similar across all kits except for SMARTer kit. RiboTag-seq can be performed successfully with as little as 250 pg of total RNA when using the SMART-Seq v4 kit and 4 ng when using the modified protocols of other library preparation kits. The SMART-Seq v4 and TruSeq kits resulted in the highest quality libraries. RiboTag IP RNA contains some immature transcripts.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Master 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 37 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 48 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 15%
Neuroscience 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 38 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,854,343
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,017
of 10,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,670
of 341,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#24
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,709 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,592 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.