Journal
RNA BIOLOGY
Volume 17, Issue 9, Pages 1284-1292Publisher
TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15476286.2020.1761081
Keywords
microRNA; miRNA; small RNA-seq; library preparation; sequencing bias; low RNA input; NGS; Next Generation Sequencing; NEBNext; NEXTflex
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
High-throughput sequencing has emerged as the favoured method to study microRNA (miRNA) expression, but biases introduced during library preparation have been reported. We recently compared the performance (sensitivity, reliability, titration response and differential expression) of six commercially-available kits on synthetic miRNAs and human RNA, where library preparation was performed by the vendors. We hereby supplement this study with data from two further commonly used kits (NEBNext, NEXTflex) whose manufacturers initially declined to participate. NEXTflex demonstrated the highest sensitivity, which may reflect its use of partially-randomized adapter sequences, but overall performance was lower than the QIAseq and TailorMix kits. NEBNext showed intermediate performance. We reaffirm that biases are kit specific, complicating the comparison of miRNA datasets generated using different kits.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available