↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of commercially available small RNASeq library preparation kits using low input RNA

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
Evaluation of commercially available small RNASeq library preparation kits using low input RNA
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-018-4726-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashish Yeri, Amanda Courtright, Kirsty Danielson, Elizabeth Hutchins, Eric Alsop, Elizabeth Carlson, Michael Hsieh, Olivia Ziegler, Avash Das, Ravi V. Shah, Joel Rozowsky, Saumya Das, Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen

Abstract

Evolving interest in comprehensively profiling the full range of small RNAs present in small tissue biopsies and in circulating biofluids, and how the profile differs with disease, has launched small RNA sequencing (RNASeq) into more frequent use. However, known biases associated with small RNASeq, compounded by low RNA inputs, have been both a significant concern and a hurdle to widespread adoption. As RNASeq is becoming a viable choice for the discovery of small RNAs in low input samples and more labs are employing it, there should be benchmark datasets to test and evaluate the performance of new sequencing protocols and operators. In a recent publication from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Pine et al., 2018, the investigators used a commercially available set of three tissues and tested performance across labs and platforms. In this paper, we further tested the performance of low RNA input in three commonly used and commercially available RNASeq library preparation kits; NEB Next, NEXTFlex, and TruSeq small RNA library preparation. We evaluated the performance of the kits at two different sites, using three different tissues (brain, liver, and placenta) with high (1 μg) and low RNA (10 ng) input from tissue samples, or 5.0, 3.0, 2.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.2 ml starting volumes of plasma. As there has been a lack of robust validation platforms for differentially expressed miRNAs, we also compared low input RNASeq data with their expression profiles on three different platforms (Abcam Fireplex, HTG EdgeSeq, and Qiagen miRNome). The concordance of RNASeq results on these three platforms was dependent on the RNA expression level; the higher the expression, the better the reproducibility. The results provide an extensive analysis of small RNASeq kit performance using low RNA input, and replication of these data on three downstream technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 123 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 20%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 4 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Engineering 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 34 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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
#4,168,406
of 25,163,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#1,538
of 11,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,980
of 333,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#48
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,621 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,177 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 333,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.