↓ Skip to main content

Systematic comparison of small RNA library preparation protocols for next-generation sequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
245 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Systematic comparison of small RNA library preparation protocols for next-generation sequencing
Published in
BMC Genomics, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4491-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cloelia Dard-Dascot, Delphine Naquin, Yves d’Aubenton-Carafa, Karine Alix, Claude Thermes, Erwin van Dijk

Abstract

Next-generation sequencing technologies have revolutionized the study of small RNAs (sRNAs) on a genome-wide scale. However, classical sRNA library preparation methods introduce serious bias, mainly during adapter ligation steps. Several types of sRNA including plant microRNAs (miRNA), piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNA) in insects, nematodes and mammals, and small interfering RNAs (siRNA) in insects and plants contain a 2'-O-methyl (2'-OMe) modification at their 3' terminal nucleotide. This inhibits 3' adapter ligation and makes library preparation particularly challenging. To reduce bias, the NEBNext kit (New England Biolabs) uses polyethylene glycol (PEG), the NEXTflex V2 kit (BIOO Scientific) uses both randomised adapters and PEG, and the novel SMARTer (Clontech) and CATS (Diagenode) kits avoid ligation altogether. Here we compared these methods with Illumina's classical TruSeq protocol regarding the detection of normal and 2' OMe RNAs. In addition, we modified the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols to identify conditions that improve performance. Among the five kits tested with their respective standard protocols, the SMARTer and CATS kits had the lowest levels of bias but also had a strong formation of side products, and as a result performed relatively poorly with biological samples; NEXTflex detected the largest numbers of different miRNAs. The use of a novel type of randomised adapters called MidRand-Like (MRL) adapters and PEG improved the detection of 2' OMe RNAs both in the TruSeq as well as in the NEXTflex protocol. While it is commonly accepted that biases in sRNA library preparation protocols are mainly due to adapter ligation steps, the ligation-free protocols were not the best performing methods. Our modified versions of the TruSeq and NEXTflex protocols provide an improved tool for the study of 2' OMe RNAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 245 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 21%
Researcher 49 20%
Student > Master 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 63 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 86 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 67 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,922,386
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#432
of 11,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,385
of 448,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#11
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,133 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 448,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.