4.8 Article

Improving small RNA-seq by using a synthetic spike-in set for size-range quality control together with a set for data normalization

Journal

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
Volume 43, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkv303

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [834.12.003]
  2. Netherlands eScience Center [027.011.307]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is an increasing interest in complementing RNA-seq experiments with small-RNA (sRNA) expression data to obtain a comprehensive view of a transcriptome. Currently, two main experimental challenges concerning sRNA-seq exist: how to check the size distribution of isolated sRNAs, given the sensitive size-selection steps in the protocol; and how to normalize data between samples, given the low complexity of sRNA types. We here present two separate sets of synthetic RNA spike-ins for monitoring size-selection and for performing data normalization in sRNA-seq. The size-range quality control (SRQC) spike-in set, consisting of 11 oligoribonucleotides (10-70 nucleotides), was tested by intentionally altering the size-selection protocol and verified via several comparative experiments. We demonstrate that the SRQC set is useful to reproducibly track down biases in the size-selection in sRNA-seq. The external reference for data-normalization (ERDN) spike-in set, consisting of 19 oligoribonucleotides, was developed for sample-to-sample normalization in differential-expression analysis of sRNA-seq data. Testing and applying the ERDN set showed that it can reproducibly detect differential expression over a dynamic range of 2(18). Hence, biological variation in sRNA composition and content between samples is preserved while technical variation is effectively minimized. Together, both spike-in sets can significantly improve the technical reproducibility of sRNA-seq.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available