A Comparison of mRNA Sequencing with Random Primed and 3’-Directed Libraries
Yuguang XiongiD, Magali Soumillon, Jie WuiD, Jens HanseniD, Bin HuiD, J. G. Coen van HasseltiD, Gomathi Jayaraman, Ryan G. LimiD, Mehdi BouhaddouiD, Loren Ornelas, Jim Bochicchio, Lindsay Lenaeus, Jennifer T. StocksdaleiD, Jaehee V. Shim, Emilda Gomez, Dhruv SareeniD, Clive Niels SvendseniD, Leslie Michels ThompsoniD, Milind C. Mahajan, Ravi IyengariD, Eric A. SobieiD, Evren U. AzelogluiD, Marc R. BirtwistleiD
Abstract
Deep mRNA sequencing (mRNAseq) is the state-of-the-art for whole transcriptome measurements. A key step is creating a library of cDNA sequencing fragments from RNA. This is generally done by random priming, creating multiple sequencing fragments along the length of each transcript. A 3 end-focused library approach cannot detect differential splicing, but has potentially higher throughput at lower cost (~10-fold lower), along with the ability to improve quantification by using transcript molecule counting with unique molecular identifiers (UMI) to correct for PCR bias. Here, we compare implementation of such a 3-digital gene expression (3-DGE) approach with \"conventional\" random primed mRNAseq, which has not yet been done. We find that while conventional mRNAseq detects ~15% more genes, the resulting lists of differentially expressed genes and therefore biological conclusions and gene signatures are highly concordant between the two techniques. We also find good quantitative agreement on the level of individual genes between the two techniques in terms of both read counts and fold change between two conditions. We conclude that for high-throughput applications, the potential cost savings associated with the 3-DGE approach are a very reasonable tradeoff for modest reduction in sensitivity and inability to observe alternative splicing, and should enable much larger scale studies focused on not only differential expression analysis, but also quantitative transcriptome profiling. The computational scripts and programs, along with experimental standard operating procedures used in our pipeline presented here, are freely available on our website (www.dtoxs.org).
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 77
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Field percentile
- top 9%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- 3' RNA sequencing does not increase power or reduce costs for gene expression analysis
Taylor M. Crow, James Anthony Gill, … Daniel E. Runcie·bioRxiv·Apr 13, 2022
- Evaluation of TagSeq, a reliable low-cost alternative for RNAseq
Brian Keith Lohman, Jesse N Weber, Daniel I Bolnick·bioRxiv·Jan 11, 2016
- Time- and cost-efficient high-throughput transcriptomics enabled by Bulk RNA Barcoding and sequencing
Daniel Alpern, Vincent Gardeux, … Bart Deplancke·Genome biologyPeer-reviewed·Apr 18, 2019
- TM3’seq: a tagmentation-mediated 3’ sequencing approach for improving scalability of RNA-seq experiments
Luisa F. Pallares, Serge Picard, Julien F. Ayroles·G3 Genes Genomes GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Nov 2, 2019
- Prime-seq, efficient and powerful bulk RNA-sequencing
Aleksandar Janjic, Lucas Esteban Wange, … Wolfgang Enard·Genome biologyPeer-reviewed·Mar 31, 2022
- Benchmark Analysis of Algorithms for Determining and Quantifying Full-length mRNA Splice Forms from RNA-Seq Data
Katharina Hayer, Angel Pizzaro, … Gregory R Grant·BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Sep 3, 2015