Tag Archives: electropherogram

Bioanalyzer – Tanner Crab RNA Isolated with RNeasy Plus Mini Kit

Ran the four Tanner crab RNA samples that I isolated yesterday on the Seeb Lab Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent) using the RNA Pico 6000 Kit.

Samples were run following kit protocol:

  • Chip priming station in Position C with syringe clip at top position

  • RNA denatured at 70C for 2mins and stored on ice.

  • RNA ladder aliquot was from 20160826 by Hollie Putnam.

RESULTS

Bioanalyzer data file (XAD):

ELECTROPHEROGRAMS:

GEL REPRESENATATIONS

These results look great to me. Clear, defined peaks/bands, representing ribosomal RNA.

Oddly, one sample (crab_506) appears to be shifted, relative to the other three, despite exhibiting the same peak/banding pattern. Not sure what would cause something like this; contaminants?

Regardless, we finally have clean RNA and have a usable Bioanalyzer profile to use for reference for crab RNA.

NOTE: The lanes marked with red on the gel representation image indicate that a ribosomal integrity number (RIN) could not be calculated. This is to be expected! The RIN is based on the expectation of two rRNA bands. The anomaly is sample crab_451 – a RIN was actually determined for that sample!

Will likely move forward with additional RNA isolations using the RNeasy Plus Kit (Qiagen).

Illumina Methylation Library Construction – Oly/C.gigas Bisulfite-treated DNA

Took the bisulfite-treated DNA from 20151218 and made Illumina libraries using the TruSeq DNA Methylation Library Kit (Illumina).

Quantified the completed libraries using the Qubit 3.0 dsDNA BR Kit (ThermoFisher).

Evaluated the DNA with the Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent) using the DNA 12000 assay. Illumina recommended using the High Sensitivity assay, but we don’t have access to that so I figured I’d just give the DNA 12000 assay a go.

SampleName IndexNumber BarCode
1NF11 1 ATCACG
1NF15 2 CGATGT
1NF16 3 TTAGGC
1NF17 4 TGACCA
2NF5 5 ACAGTG
2NF6 6 GCCAAT
2NF7 7 CAGATC
2NF8 8 ACTTGA
M2 9 GATCAG
M3 10 TAGCTT
NF2_6 11 GGCTAC
NF_18 12 CTTGTA

 

Results:

Library Quantification (Google Sheet): 20151221_quantification_illumina_methylation_libraries

Test Name Concentration (ng/μL)
1NF11 Out of range
1NF15 2.14
1NF16 2.74
1NF17 2.64
2NF5 2.92
2NF6 Out of range
2NF7 2.42
2NF8 2.56
M2 Out of range
M3 2.1
NF2_6 2.38
NF2_18 Out of range

 

I used the Qubit’s BR (broad range) kit because I wasn’t sure what concentrations to expect. I need to use the high sensitivity kit to get a better evaluation of all the samples’ concentrations.

 

 

Bioanalyzer Data File (Bioanalyzer 2100): 2100_20expert_DNA_2012000_DE72902486_2015-12-21_16-58-43.xad

 

Ha! Well, looks like you definitely need to use the DNA High Sensitivty assay for the Bioanalyzer to pick up anything. Although, I guess you can see a slight hump in most of the samples at the appropriate sizes (~300bp); you just have to squint. ;)

Bioanalyzer – Bisulfite-treated Oly/C.gigas DNA

Following the guidelines of the TruSeq DNA Methylation Library Prep Guide (Illumina), I ran 1μL of each sample on an RNA Pico 6000 chip on the Seeb Lab’s Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent) to confirm that bisulfite conversion from earlier today worked.

Results:

Data File 1(Bioanlyzer 2100): 2100 expert_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_DE72902486_2015-12-18_21-05-04.xad

Data File 1(Bioanlyzer 2100): 2100 expert_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_DE72902486_2015-12-18_21-42-55.xad

 

 

Firstly, the ladder failed to produce any peaks. Not sure why this happened. Possibly not denatured? Seems unlikely, but next time I run the Pico assay, I’ll denature the ladder aliquot I use prior to running.

Overall, the samples look as they should (see image from TruSeq DNA Methylation Kit manual below), albeit some are a bit lumpy.

DNA Sonication – Oly gDNA for MBD

In preparation for MBD enrichment, fragmented Olympia oyster gDNA with a target size of ~350bp.

Genomic DNA samples were isolated and provided to us by Katherine Silliman at UIC. Selected samples will compare Hood Canal (HC) and Oyster Bay (SS, South Sound) populations.

Used the Seeb Lab’s Bioruptor 300 (Diagenode) sonicator.

After sonication, samples were run on a the Seeb Lab’s 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent) on DNA 12000 chips.

Results:

HOOD CANAL SAMPLES

 

OYSTER BAY SAMPLES

More detailed analysis (including average fragment size for each samples) will be coming soon…

Bioanalyzer – Geoduck Gonad RNA Quality Assessment

Before proceeding with transcriptomics for this project, we need to assess the integrity of the RNA via Bioanalyzer.

RNA that was previously isolated on 20150508, 20150505, 20150427, and 20150424 (those notebook entries have been updated to report this consolidation and have a link to this notebook entry) were consolidated into single samples (if there had been multiple isolations of the same sample) and spec’d on the Roberts Lab NanoDrop1000:

Google Sheet: 20150528_geoduck_histo_RNA_ODs

NOTE: Screwed up consolidation of Geoduck Block 03 sample (added one of the 04 dupes to the tube, so discarded 03).

RNA was stored in Shellfish RNA Box #5.

RNA was submitted to to Jesse Tsai at University of Washington Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Science Functional Genomics Laboratory for running on the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100, using either the RNA Pico or RNA Nano chips, depending on RNA concentration (Pico for lower concentrations and Nano for higher concentrations – left decision up to Jesse).

 

Results:

Bioanalzyer 2100 Pico Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_2015-05-28_12-50-00.xad
Bioanalzyer 2100 Nano Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Nano_2015-05-28_13-22-53.xad

 

Pico Gel Representation

 

Pico Electropherogram

 

Nano Gel Representation

 

Nano Electropherogram

 

Jesse alerted me to the fact that they did not have any ladder to use on the Nano chip, as someone had used the remainder, but failed to order more. I OK’d him to go ahead with the Nano chip despite lacking ladder, as we primarily needed to assess RNA integrity.

 

Bad Samples:

  • Geo 04 – No RNA detected
  • Geo 65, 67, 68 – These three samples show complete degradation of the RNA (i.e. no ribosomal band present, significant smearing on the gel representation).

All other samples look solid. Will discuss with Steven and Brent on how they want to proceed.

Full list of samples for this project (including the Block 03 sample not included in this analysis; see above). Grace’s notebook will have details on what the numbering indicates (e.g. developmental stage).

  • block 02
  • block 03 (no RNA)
  • block 04 (no RNA)
  • block 07
  • block 08
  • block 09
  • block 34
  • block 35
  • block 38
  • block 41
  • block 42
  • block 46
  • block 51
  • block 65 (degraded RNA)
  • block 67 (degraded RNA)
  • block 68 (degraded RNA)
  • block 69
  • block 70

Bioanalyzer Data – Geoduck RNA from Histology Blocks

I received the Bioanalyzer data back for the geoduck foot RNA samples I submitted 20150422. The two samples were run on the RNA Pico chip assay.

 

Results:

Bioanalzyer 2100 Data File (XAD): SamWhite_Eukaryote Total RNA Pico_2015-04-23_13-04-16.xad

Data file requires 2100_Expert_B0208_SI648_SR2 version of the software (Windows).

Gel Representation

 

Electropherogram

 

The samples look really good! As we’ve seen previously in shellfish RNA, there is a single, prominent rRNA band/peak with very little degradation (smearing and/or no prominent peak/band).

Will proceed with RNA isolation from the remaining histology blocks.

Bioanalyzer – C.gigas Sheared DNA from 20140108

To complement MBD ChiP-seq data and RNA-seq data that we have from this experiment, we want to generate, at a minimum, some BS-seq data from the same C.gigas individuals used for the other aspects of this experiment.  Claire had previously isolated DNA and sheared the DNA on 20140108. If possible, we’d like to perform MBD enrichment, but the current quantities of DNA may prevent us from this.

To quantify the DNA and evaluate the shearing profile, I ran 1μL of each of the following mantle pre-/post-heat shock samples on a DNA 1000 chip (Agilent) on the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer. in the Seeb Lab:

M = mantle
HS = heat shocked

  • 2M sheared
  • 4M sheared
  • 6M sheared
  • 2M HS sheared
  • 4M HS sheared
  • 6M HS sheared

Results:

Bioanalyzer Data File (XAD): 2100_expert_DNA_1000_DE72902486_2015-02-19_11-32-35(2).xad

 

Electropherograms

2100 Bioanalyzer electropherograms of Claire’s sheared C.gigas DNA.

 

Spreadsheet: 2100 expert_DNA 1000_DE72902486_2015-02-19_11-32-35_Results_001

 

Claire’s notebook entry doesn’t ever specify what her target shear size was, but the Bioanalyzer analysis suggests an average size of ~500bp.

Also interesting to note is that Claire’s sample concentrations (as measured on the NanoDrop1000) are significantly greater than what is calculated by the Bioanalyzer. Since the Bioanalyzer chip used (DNA1000) only goes to 1000bp, is it possible the differences in concentrations is due to incomplete shearing of the samples (e.g. a significant portion of the DNA is >1000bp in size and thus not factored in to the Bioanlyzer concentrations calculations)?

Will check sample volumes and determine total amount of remaining DNA for each sample and then assess how to proceed next (i.e. MBD or just BS-seq).

UPDATE 20150226:

Sample volumes were measured and total quantity (ng) of DNA in each sample were added to the spreadsheet above.

Based on the quantities of DNA we have for each sample, will discuss sequencing options (e.g. MBD or not, self-prepare libraries or not, etc) with Steven.

 

Library Cleanup – LSU C.virginica MBD BS Library

I was contacted by the sequencing facility at the University of Oregon regarding a sample quality issue with our library.  As evidenced by the electropherogram below, there is a great deal of adaptor primer dimer (the peak at 128bp):

 

This is a problem because such a high quantity of adaptor sequence will result in the majority of reads coming off the Illumina being just adaptor sequences.

With the remainder of the library sample prepared earlier, I performed the recommended clean up procedure for removing adaptor sequences in the EpiNext Post-Bisulfite DNA Library Preparation Kit – Illumina (Epigentek).    Briefly:

  • Brought sample volume up to 20uL with NanoPure H2O (added 9.99uL)

  • Added equal volume of MQ Beads

  • Washed beads 3x w/80% EtOH

  • Eluted DNA w/12uL Buffer EB (Qiagen)

After clean up, quantified the sample via fluorescence using the Quant-iT DNA BR Kit (Life Technologies/Invitrogen).  Used 1uL of the sample and the standards.  All standards were run in duplicate and read on a FLx800 plate reader (BioTek).

Results are here: 20150122 – LSU_virginicaMBDlibraryCleanup

Library concentration = 2.46ng/uL

Brought the entire sample up to 20uL with Buffer EB (Qiagen) and a final concentration of 0.1% Tween-20 (required by the sequencing facility).

Sent sample to the University of Oregon to replace our previous submission.

Bioanalyzer – Fragmented SB/WB gDNA (from 20100625)

To gain a more quantitative assessment of the fragmentation from 20100625, I ran 1uL of each sample (~55ng, according to pre-fragmentation spec values) on the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100, using the DNA 1000 kit, according to manufacturer’s protocol.

Results:

Avg. size of fragmentation is ~460bp for the two samples. Fragmentation size was determined by marking the same region on both sample’s electropherograms (see below).

R37: Avg. size = 450bp (in Region 1, marked with blue lines in image below)

 

 

R51: Avg. size = 468bp (in Region 1, marked with blue lines in image below)

 

 

 

Overlay of R37 and R51 fragmentation. Note that both electropherograms are nearly identical (this is good).

cDNA clean up & Bioanalyzer for SOLiD Libraries – Abalone, Yellow Perch, Lake Trout, Herring

Amplified cDNA was cleaned up using the Invitrogen PureLink Micro Kit, but was done so according to Ambion’s Whole Transcriptome Analysis Kit protocol and then spec’d.

Results:

0.5uL was removed from each sample and mixed with 0.5uL to run on DNA 1000 chips on the Bioanalyzer 2100. The slideshow below shows the electropherograms from each sample. Each sample (to be considered worthy of moving to the next stage) should have <20% of the sample in the 25-150bp range. All 8 samples exhibit this and their peaks look very good. Will proceed to ePCR/templated bead prep next week.