» Articles » PMID: 38938917

Adapter Dimer Contamination in SRNA-sequencing Datasets Predicts Sequencing Failure and Batch Effects and Hampers Extracellular Vesicle-sRNA Analysis

Overview
Date 2024 Jun 28
PMID 38938917
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Small RNA (sRNA) profiling of Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) by Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) often delivers poor outcomes, independently of reagents, platforms or pipelines used, which contributes to poor reproducibility of studies. Here we analysed pre/post-sequencing quality controls (QC) to predict issues potentially biasing biological sRNA-sequencing results from purified human milk EVs, human and mouse EV-enriched plasma and human paraffin-embedded tissues. Although different RNA isolation protocols and NGS platforms were used in these experiments, all datasets had samples characterized by a marked removal of reads after pre-processing. The extent of read loss between individual samples within a dataset did not correlate with isolated RNA quantity or sequenced base quality. Rather, cDNA electropherograms revealed the presence of a constant peak whose intensity correlated with the degree of read loss and, remarkably, with the percentage of adapter dimers, which were found to be overrepresented sequences in high read-loss samples. The analysis through a QC pipeline, which allowed us to monitor quality parameters in a step-by-step manner, provided compelling evidence that adapter dimer contamination was the main factor causing batch effects. We concluded this study by summarising peer-reviewed published workflows that perform consistently well in avoiding adapter dimer contamination towards a greater likelihood of sequencing success.

Citing Articles

Adapter dimer contamination in sRNA-sequencing datasets predicts sequencing failure and batch effects and hampers extracellular vesicle-sRNA analysis.

Maqueda J, Giovanazzi A, Rocha A, Rocha S, Silva I, Saraiva N J Extracell Biol. 2024; 2(6):e91.

PMID: 38938917 PMC: 11080836. DOI: 10.1002/jex2.91.

References
1.
Giovanazzi A, van Herwijnen M, Kleinjan M, van der Meulen G, Wauben M . Surface protein profiling of milk and serum extracellular vesicles unveils body fluid-specific signatures. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):8758. PMC: 10229631. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-35799-w. View

2.
Fasold M, Binder H . Variation of RNA Quality and Quantity Are Major Sources of Batch Effects in Microarray Expression Data. Microarrays (Basel). 2016; 3(4):322-39. PMC: 4979052. DOI: 10.3390/microarrays3040322. View

3.
Dard-Dascot C, Naquin D, dAubenton-Carafa Y, Alix K, Thermes C, van Dijk E . Systematic comparison of small RNA library preparation protocols for next-generation sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2018; 19(1):118. PMC: 5799908. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-4491-6. View

4.
Robinson M, McCarthy D, Smyth G . edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2009; 26(1):139-40. PMC: 2796818. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616. View

5.
Gallego Romero I, Pai A, Tung J, Gilad Y . RNA-seq: impact of RNA degradation on transcript quantification. BMC Biol. 2014; 12:42. PMC: 4071332. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7007-12-42. View