RNA BiologyBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
Fatima HeinickeiD, Xiangfu ZhongiD, Manuela ZucknickiD, Johannes BreidenbachiD, Arvind Y. M. SundaramiD, Siri T. FlåmiD, Magnus LeithaugiD, Marianne DallandiD, Andrew A. FarmeriD, Jordana M. HendersoniD, Melanie HussongiD, Pamela Renate Moll, Loan Nguyen, Amanda M. McNulty, Jonathan M. Shaffer, Sabrina ShoreiD, Hoichong Karen Yip, Jana Vitkovska, Simon RayneriD, Benedicte Alexandra LieiD, Gregor D. GilfillaniD
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing is increasingly favoured to assay the presence and abundance of micro RNAs (miRNAs) in biological samples, even from low RNA amounts, and a number of commercial vendors now offer kits that allow miRNA sequencing from sub-nanogram (ng) inputs. However, although biases introduced during library preparation have been documented, the relative performance of current reagent kits has not been investigated in detail. Here, six commercial kits capable of handling <100ng total RNA input were used for library preparation, performed by kit manufactures, on synthetic miRNAs of known quantities and human biological total RNA samples. We compared the performance of miRNA detection sensitivity, reliability, titration response and the ability to detect differentially expressed miRNAs. In addition, we assessed the use of unique molecular identifiers sequence (UMI) tags in one kit. We observed differences in detection sensitivity and ability to identify differentially expressed miRNAs between the kits, but none were able to detect the full repertoire of expected miRNAs. The reliability within the replicates of all kits was good, while larger differences were observed between the kits, although none could accurately quantify the majority of miRNAs. UMI tags, at least within the input ranges tested, offered little advantage to improve data utility. In conclusion, biases in miRNA abundance are heavily influenced by the kit used for library preparation, suggesting that comparisons of datasets prepared by different procedures should be made with caution. This article is intended to assist researchers select the most appropriate kit for their experimental conditions.
- Citations
- 45
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Field percentile
- top 13%
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
- An extension to: Systematic assessment of commercially available low-input miRNA library preparation kits
Fatima Heinicke, Xiangfu Zhong, … Gregor D. Gilfillan·RNA BiologyPeer-reviewed·May 21, 2020
- Comprehensive assessment of multiple biases in small RNA sequencing reveals significant differences in the performance of widely used methods
Carrie Wright, Anandita Rajpurohit, … Joo Heon Shin·BMC GenomicsPeer-reviewed·Jun 21, 2019
- Comprehensive analysis of RNA-seq kits for standard, low and ultra-low quantity samples
Marie-Ange Palomares, Cyril Dalmasso, … Robert Olaso·bioRxiv·Jan 18, 2019
- Massively differential bias between two widely used Illumina library preparation methods for small RNA sequencing
Jeanette Baran-Gale, Michael R Erdos, … Praveen Sethupathy·bioRxiv·Dec 19, 2013
- Small RNA-sequencing for Analysis of Circulating miRNAs: Benchmark Study
Peter Androvic, Sarka Benesova, … Lukáš Valihrach·Journal of Molecular DiagnosticsPeer-reviewed·Jan 23, 2022
- Fluorescently guided workflow with rationally engineered 5' ligation adapters for high-sensitivity and low-bias small RNA sequencing
Sarah Anne Barnes, Daniel Lovíšek, … Pavol Čekan·bioRxiv·Jun 24, 2026