RNA-seq sample preparation kits strongly affect transcriptome profiles of a gas-fermenting bacterium

Transcriptome analysis via RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a standard technique employed across various biological fields of study. This rapid adoption of the RNA-seq approach has been mediated, in part, by the development of different commercial RNA-seq library preparation kits compatible with standard next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. Generally, the essential steps of library preparation such as ribosomal RNA (rRNA) depletion and first-strand cDNA synthesis are tailored to a specific group of organisms (e.g. eukaryotes vs. prokaryotes) or genomic GC content. Therefore, the selection of appropriate commercial products is of crucial importance to capture the transcriptome of interest as closely to the native state as possible without introduction of technical bias. However, researchers rarely have the resources and time to test various commercial RNA-seq kits for their samples. This work reports a side-by-side comparison of RNA-seq data from Clostridium autoethanogenum obtained using three commercial rRNA removal and strand-specific library construction products by NuGEN Technologies, Qiagen, and Zymo Research and assesses their performance relative to published data. While all three vendors advertise their products as suitable for prokaryotes, we found significant differences in their performance regarding rRNA removal, strand-specificity, and, most importantly, transcript abundance distribution profiles. Notably, RNA-seq data obtained with Qiagen products were most similar to published data and delivered the best results in terms of library strandedness and transcript abundance distribution range. Our results highlight the importance of finding appropriate organism-specific workflows and library preparation products for RNA-seq studies. ImportanceRNA-seq is a powerful technique for transcriptome profiling while involving elaborate sample processing before library sequencing. Our work is important as we show that RNA-seq library preparation kits can strongly affect the outcome of the RNA-seq experiment. Although library preparation benefits from the availability of various commercial kits, choosing appropriate products for the specific samples can be challenging for new users or for users working with unconventional organisms. Evaluating the performance of different commercial products requires significant financial and time investment infeasible to most researchers. Therefore, users are often guided in their choice of kits by published data involving similar input samples. We conclude that important consideration should be given to selecting of sample processing workflows for any given organism.