Illumina SBS 测序和 DNBSEQ 在单细胞转录组学方面表现相似。

IF 2.8 3区 生物学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genes Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.3390/genes15111436
Nadine Bestard-Cuche, David A D Munro, Meryam Beniazza, Josef Priller, Anna Williams, Andrea Corsinotti
{"title":"Illumina SBS 测序和 DNBSEQ 在单细胞转录组学方面表现相似。","authors":"Nadine Bestard-Cuche, David A D Munro, Meryam Beniazza, Josef Priller, Anna Williams, Andrea Corsinotti","doi":"10.3390/genes15111436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>High-throughput single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) workflows produce libraries that demand extensive sequencing. However, standard next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods remain expensive, contributing to the high running costs of single-cell experiments and often negatively affecting the sample numbers and statistical strength of such projects. In recent years, a plethora of new sequencing technologies have become available to researchers through several manufacturers, often providing lower-cost alternatives to standard NGS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we compared data generated from mouse scRNA-seq libraries sequenced with both standard Illumina sequencing by synthesis (Illumina SBS) and MGI's DNA nanoball sequencing (DNBSEQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal similar overall performance using both technologies. DNBSEQ exhibited mildly superior sequence quality compared to Illumina SBS, as evidenced by higher Phred scores, lower read duplication rates and a greater number of genes mapping to the reference genome. Yet these improvements did not translate into meaningful differences in single-cell analysis parameters in our experiments, including detection of additional genes within cells, gene expression saturation levels and numbers of identified cells, with both technologies demonstrating equally robust performance in these aspects. The data produced by both sequencing platforms also produced comparable analytical outcomes for single-cell analysis. No significant difference in the annotation of cells into different cell types was observed and the same top genes were differentially expressed between populations and experimental conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our data demonstrate that alternative technologies can be applied to sequence scRNA-seq libraries, generating virtually indistinguishable results compared to standard methods, and providing cost-effective alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":12688,"journal":{"name":"Genes","volume":"15 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11594097/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Illumina SBS Sequencing and DNBSEQ Perform Similarly for Single-Cell Transcriptomics.\",\"authors\":\"Nadine Bestard-Cuche, David A D Munro, Meryam Beniazza, Josef Priller, Anna Williams, Andrea Corsinotti\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/genes15111436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>High-throughput single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) workflows produce libraries that demand extensive sequencing. However, standard next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods remain expensive, contributing to the high running costs of single-cell experiments and often negatively affecting the sample numbers and statistical strength of such projects. In recent years, a plethora of new sequencing technologies have become available to researchers through several manufacturers, often providing lower-cost alternatives to standard NGS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we compared data generated from mouse scRNA-seq libraries sequenced with both standard Illumina sequencing by synthesis (Illumina SBS) and MGI's DNA nanoball sequencing (DNBSEQ).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings reveal similar overall performance using both technologies. DNBSEQ exhibited mildly superior sequence quality compared to Illumina SBS, as evidenced by higher Phred scores, lower read duplication rates and a greater number of genes mapping to the reference genome. Yet these improvements did not translate into meaningful differences in single-cell analysis parameters in our experiments, including detection of additional genes within cells, gene expression saturation levels and numbers of identified cells, with both technologies demonstrating equally robust performance in these aspects. The data produced by both sequencing platforms also produced comparable analytical outcomes for single-cell analysis. No significant difference in the annotation of cells into different cell types was observed and the same top genes were differentially expressed between populations and experimental conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, our data demonstrate that alternative technologies can be applied to sequence scRNA-seq libraries, generating virtually indistinguishable results compared to standard methods, and providing cost-effective alternatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genes\",\"volume\":\"15 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11594097/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15111436\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genes","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15111436","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目标:高通量单细胞 RNA 测序(scRNA-seq)工作流程产生的文库需要大量测序。然而,标准的新一代测序(NGS)方法依然昂贵,导致单细胞实验的运行成本居高不下,而且往往对此类项目的样本数量和统计强度产生负面影响。近年来,研究人员可通过多家制造商获得大量新的测序技术,这些技术通常可提供成本更低的标准 NGS 方法替代品:在这项研究中,我们比较了用标准的 Illumina 合成测序技术(Illumina SBS)和 MGI 的 DNA 纳米球测序技术(DNBSEQ)测序的小鼠 scRNA-seq 文库所产生的数据:结果:我们的研究结果表明,两种技术的总体性能相似。与Illumina SBS相比,DNBSEQ的序列质量略胜一筹,具体表现为Phred评分更高、读数重复率更低,以及有更多基因映射到参考基因组。然而,在我们的实验中,这些改进并没有转化为单细胞分析参数上有意义的差异,包括细胞内额外基因的检测、基因表达饱和度和鉴定细胞的数量,两种技术在这些方面都表现出同样强大的性能。两种测序平台产生的数据也产生了类似的单细胞分析结果。在将细胞注释为不同细胞类型方面没有观察到明显差异,相同的顶级基因在不同群体和实验条件下有不同的表达:总之,我们的数据表明,替代技术可用于 scRNA-seq 文库测序,产生的结果与标准方法几乎没有差异,而且提供了具有成本效益的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Illumina SBS Sequencing and DNBSEQ Perform Similarly for Single-Cell Transcriptomics.

Background/objectives: High-throughput single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) workflows produce libraries that demand extensive sequencing. However, standard next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods remain expensive, contributing to the high running costs of single-cell experiments and often negatively affecting the sample numbers and statistical strength of such projects. In recent years, a plethora of new sequencing technologies have become available to researchers through several manufacturers, often providing lower-cost alternatives to standard NGS.

Methods: In this study, we compared data generated from mouse scRNA-seq libraries sequenced with both standard Illumina sequencing by synthesis (Illumina SBS) and MGI's DNA nanoball sequencing (DNBSEQ).

Results: Our findings reveal similar overall performance using both technologies. DNBSEQ exhibited mildly superior sequence quality compared to Illumina SBS, as evidenced by higher Phred scores, lower read duplication rates and a greater number of genes mapping to the reference genome. Yet these improvements did not translate into meaningful differences in single-cell analysis parameters in our experiments, including detection of additional genes within cells, gene expression saturation levels and numbers of identified cells, with both technologies demonstrating equally robust performance in these aspects. The data produced by both sequencing platforms also produced comparable analytical outcomes for single-cell analysis. No significant difference in the annotation of cells into different cell types was observed and the same top genes were differentially expressed between populations and experimental conditions.

Conclusions: Overall, our data demonstrate that alternative technologies can be applied to sequence scRNA-seq libraries, generating virtually indistinguishable results compared to standard methods, and providing cost-effective alternatives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Genes
Genes GENETICS & HEREDITY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
1975
审稿时长
22.94 days
期刊介绍: Genes (ISSN 2073-4425) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to genes, genetics and genomics. It publishes reviews, research articles, communications and technical notes. There is no restriction on the length of the papers and we encourage scientists to publish their results in as much detail as possible.
期刊最新文献
Characterization and Phylogenetic Analysis of the First Complete Chloroplast Genome of Shizhenia pinguicula (Orchidaceae: Orchideae). An Updated Analysis of Exon-Skipping Applicability for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Using the UMD-DMD Database. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in Rice Germplasm Innovation and Genetic Improvement. MIR27A rs895819 CC Genotype Severely Reduces miR-27a Plasma Expression Levels. Multiple Osteochondritis Dissecans as Main Manifestation of Multiple Epiphyseal Dysplasia Caused by a Novel Cartilage Oligomeric Matrix Protein Pathogenic Variant: A Clinical Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1