Title |
Deep-Sequencing Protocols Influence the Results Obtained in Small-RNA Sequencing
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, February 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0032724 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Joern Toedling, Nicolas Servant, Constance Ciaudo, Laurent Farinelli, Olivier Voinnet, Edith Heard, Emmanuel Barillot |
Abstract |
Second-generation sequencing is a powerful method for identifying and quantifying small-RNA components of cells. However, little attention has been paid to the effects of the choice of sequencing platform and library preparation protocol on the results obtained. We present a thorough comparison of small-RNA sequencing libraries generated from the same embryonic stem cell lines, using different sequencing platforms, which represent the three major second-generation sequencing technologies, and protocols. We have analysed and compared the expression of microRNAs, as well as populations of small RNAs derived from repetitive elements. Despite the fact that different libraries display a good correlation between sequencing platforms, qualitative and quantitative variations in the results were found, depending on the protocol used. Thus, when comparing libraries from different biological samples, it is strongly recommended to use the same sequencing platform and protocol in order to ensure the biological relevance of the comparisons. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | 25% |
United Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
Germany | 1 | 13% |
Australia | 1 | 13% |
Russia | 1 | 13% |
Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
Scientists | 3 | 38% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 4 | 3% |
Germany | 3 | 2% |
France | 2 | 1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
Cuba | 1 | <1% |
Chile | 1 | <1% |
Czechia | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Other | 2 | 1% |
Unknown | 123 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 47 | 34% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 28% |
Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
Other | 8 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 4% |
Other | 18 | 13% |
Unknown | 9 | 6% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 92 | 66% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 11% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 4% |
Computer Science | 4 | 3% |
Engineering | 3 | 2% |
Other | 8 | 6% |
Unknown | 13 | 9% |