Cross-site comparison of ribosomal depletion kits for Illumina RNAseq library construction.

BACKGROUND: Ribosomal RNA (rRNA) comprises at least 90% of total RNA extracted from mammalian tissue or cell line samples. Informative transcriptional profiling using massively parallel sequencing technologies requires either enrichment of mature poly-adenylated transcripts or targeted depletion of the rRNA fraction. The latter method is of particular interest because it is compatible with degraded samples such as those extracted from FFPE and also captures transcripts that are not poly-adenylated such as some non-coding RNAs. Here we provide a cross-site study that evaluates the performance of ribosomal RNA removal kits from Illumina, Takara/Clontech, Kapa Biosystems, Lexogen, New England Biolabs and Qiagen on intact and degraded RNA samples. RESULTS: We find that all of the kits are capable of performing significant ribosomal depletion, though there are differences in their ease of use. All kits were able to remove ribosomal RNA to below 20% with intact RNA and identify ~ 14,000 protein coding genes from the Universal Human Reference RNA sample at >1FPKM. Analysis of differentially detected genes between kits suggests that transcript length may be a key factor in library production efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a roadmap for labs on the strengths of each of these methods and how best to utilize them.

Multisite Evaluation of Next-Generation Methods for Small RNA Quantification.

Small RNAs (smRNAs) are important regulators of many biologic processes and are now most frequently characterized using Illumina sequencing. However, although standard RNA sequencing library preparation has become routine in most sequencing facilities, smRNA sequencing library preparation has historically been challenging because of high input requirements, laborious protocols involving gel purifications, inability to automate, and a lack of benchmarking standards. Additionally, studies have suggested that many of these methods are nonlinear and do not accurately reflect the amounts of smRNAs in vivo. Recently, a number of new kits have become available that permit lower input amounts and less laborious, gel-free protocol options. Several of these new kits claim to reduce RNA ligase-dependent sequence bias through novel adapter modifications and to lessen adapter-dimer contamination in the resulting libraries. With the increasing number of smRNA kits available, understanding the relative strengths of each method is crucial for appropriate experimental design. In this study, we systematically compared 9 commercially available smRNA library preparation kits as well as NanoString probe hybridization across multiple study sites. Although several of the new methodologies do reduce the amount of artificially over- and underrepresented microRNAs (miRNAs), we observed that none of the methods was able to remove all of the bias in the library preparation. Identical samples prepared with different methods show highly varied levels of different miRNAs. Even so, many methods excelled in ease of use, lower input requirement, fraction of usable reads, and reproducibility across sites. These differences may help users select the most appropriate methods for their specific question of interest.